Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged with kidnapping, rape, murder, destruction of evidence and criminal conspiracy, holding that prolonged incarceration exceeding six years, absence of direct evidence, hostile prosecution witnesses, and lack of scientific linkage justified release pending trial. The Court ruled that where the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence that appears fragile at the bail stage, continued custody becomes punitive — “pre-trial detention cannot extend indefinitely”; bail granted with stringent conditions.
Court’s decision
Justice Vikas Mahajan allowed the bail application, observing that the petitioner had already undergone more than six years and two months of custody, while the trial involving 54 witnesses was far from conclusion. The Court held that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution — CCTV footage, recoveries, call detail records and witness testimonies — did not, at this stage, disclose a strong prima facie case warranting continued incarceration. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to secure the petitioner’s presence and protect the integrity of the trial.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that in January 2019, the petitioner, along with two co-accused, participated in the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a young woman after consuming alcohol together at a bus stand in Najafgarh. According to the prosecution, the principal accused took the victim to agricultural fields on the pretext of closing a tubewell, attempted to rape her, and upon resistance, called the petitioner and another associate to the spot.
It was alleged that all three accused attempted to rape the victim, after which she was strangulated. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner assisted in switching off the victim’s mobile phone, transporting the body in a vehicle, and disposing of it in a well in Haryana after removing her clothes to conceal identity. The petitioner was arrested in 2019 and remained in custody since then.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case involving grave offences punishable with life imprisonment or death, where the prosecution case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, and the accused had already undergone prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The Court also examined whether parity with a co-accused already enlarged on bail and the slow pace of trial justified grant of bail.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that there was no eye-witness to the alleged crime and that the prosecution case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence lacking a complete and unbroken chain. It was submitted that key witnesses cited to identify the petitioner from CCTV footage had turned hostile and failed to identify him either during trial or in court.
The petitioner emphasised that forensic evidence, including DNA analysis, implicated only the principal accused and not him. Recoveries allegedly made at his instance were argued to be weak and merely corroborative, while call detail records only showed telephonic contact and did not establish physical presence at the scene of crime. The petitioner further highlighted that he had spent over six years in custody, while the trial with 54 witnesses was likely to take considerable time.
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed bail, contending that the offences were heinous and involved sexual violence and murder. It was argued that the petitioner’s role was clearly spelt out in the prosecution narrative and that circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, recoveries of the victim’s belongings, and call detail records, sufficiently connected him with the crime.
The prosecution further submitted that the petitioner could not claim parity with a co-accused who was granted bail on medical and conduct-related grounds. Reliance was also placed on the petitioner’s involvement in other criminal cases and the fact that he had been arrested in another matter while on interim bail in the past.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled principles that bail decisions require a careful balance between the gravity of the offence and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It emphasised that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly where the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, weighs heavily in favour of bail.
The Court also noted that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, courts must be cautious in denying bail when the evidentiary links appear tenuous at the interlocutory stage. Involvement in other criminal cases, the Court observed, cannot by itself be a decisive factor for rejection of bail.
Precedent analysis
While no specific judgments were cited, the order reflects consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that incarceration beyond a reasonable period without conclusion of trial violates constitutional guarantees of liberty. Courts have repeatedly held that bail must be considered favourably where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence and key witnesses have not supported the case at trial. These principles were applied to assess the petitioner’s entitlement to bail.
Court’s reasoning
The Court closely examined the testimonies of two crucial prosecution witnesses cited to establish the petitioner’s presence and movements. Both witnesses failed to identify the petitioner and denied earlier statements attributed to them by the police, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
The Court further noted that CCTV footage did not capture the commission of the offence and was relied upon only for peripheral circumstances. Scientific evidence, including DNA analysis, implicated only the principal accused. Recoveries and call detail records were held to be corroborative at best and insufficient, on their own, to justify continued detention. Given the petitioner’s six-year incarceration and the likelihood of a protracted trial, the balance decisively favoured bail.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety and compliance with strict conditions, including regular appearance before the court, monthly reporting to the investigating officer, and non-interference with witnesses. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not influence the trial on merits.
Implications
This ruling reinforces constitutional limits on prolonged pre-trial detention, even in cases involving grave offences. It underscores that seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse weak evidentiary foundations and excessive delay in trial. The judgment also highlights judicial insistence that circumstantial evidence must be strong and credible to justify long incarceration, reaffirming the primacy of personal liberty under criminal jurisprudence.
Case law references
- Bail and prolonged incarceration: Extended pre-trial custody without early conclusion of trial violates personal liberty. Applied to grant bail.
- Circumstantial evidence at bail stage: Weak or broken evidentiary links justify release pending trial. Applied to assess prosecution material.
- Parity and criminal antecedents: Bail to co-accused and involvement in other cases cannot be sole grounds to deny bail. Applied to favour the petitioner.
FAQs
1. Can bail be granted in cases involving rape and murder?
Yes. Bail may be granted if evidence is circumstantial, custody is prolonged, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.
2. Does hostile witness testimony matter at the bail stage?
Yes. Failure of key witnesses to support the prosecution case can significantly tilt the balance in favour of bail.
3. Does grant of bail mean the accused is acquitted?
No. Bail orders are interim and do not determine guilt, which will be decided at trial.
