Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Murder Accused After 9 Years in Custody, Notes Slow Trial and Limited Role as Pillion Rider
Facts
Pankaj Kumar @ Bauwa filed a regular bail application in FIR No. 128/2017 registered at Police Station Dabri for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case related to a murder allegedly committed by persons travelling on a motorcycle. The role attributed to the petitioner was that he was sitting as a pillion rider between the driver and the alleged shooter.
The petitioner had already been in custody for about nine years. The Court also noted that only 9 out of 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined till date.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner should continue to remain in custody despite prolonged incarceration of nine years.
- Whether the slow progress of trial justified grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s role as a pillion rider, compared to the alleged shooter and driver, entitled him to bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that all eyewitnesses had already been examined before the Trial Court and only formal public witnesses remained.
It was submitted that the co-accused Kapil Sharma, who had allegedly fired the fatal shot, had already been granted bail on the ground that he was suffering from paraplegia.
The petitioner also argued that the person who was allegedly driving the motorcycle at the time of the shooting had not been arrested till date. In contrast, the petitioner’s alleged role was only that he was sitting as a pillion rider between the driver and the shooter.
The petitioner further submitted that he had been in custody for nine years, and the trial was moving at a very slow pace.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application. However, the Court recorded that the Investigating Officer appeared only after hearing had commenced and was not aware of the relevant facts of the matter.
Despite repeated queries from the Court, the IO could not disclose how many public witnesses remained to be examined or what role each remaining witness was expected to play.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the petitioner’s long custody, the pace of trial, the role attributed to him, and the conduct of the investigating agency.
In serious offences such as murder, bail is generally examined cautiously. However, prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial is a significant factor, especially when the trial is progressing slowly and the accused’s role is not shown to be graver than that of co-accused who have already received bail.
The Court also treated the investigating agency’s lack of preparedness seriously, as the IO could not assist the Court on basic facts regarding the remaining witnesses.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was discussed in the order. The Court applied settled bail principles relating to prolonged custody, delay in trial, role of the accused, parity, and the constitutional protection of personal liberty.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner had already spent about nine years in custody and the trial had proceeded at a “snail pace,” with only 9 out of 25 prosecution witnesses examined.
The Court also considered that the petitioner was not alleged to have fired the fatal shot. His alleged role was limited to sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle between the driver and the shooter.
The Court further noted the “complete lack of interest” on the part of the investigating agency, particularly because the IO was unable to answer basic questions regarding the remaining witnesses.
Considering the petitioner’s role, prolonged incarceration, slow trial, and the investigating agency’s lack of assistance, the Court held that there was no reason to further deprive the petitioner of liberty.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail application and directed that Pankaj Kumar @ Bauwa be released on bail.
He was ordered to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Case Details
Case: Pankaj Kumar @ Bauwa v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1721/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 8 July 2026
Result: Bail granted.
