Delhi High Court Grants Murder Accused Bail on Parity; Finds No Evidence Beyond Co-Accused’s Custodial Confession and Refusal to Join Identification Parade Proceedings
Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case; Finds No Evidence Against Accused Except Co-Accused’s Custodial Confession
Facts
The petitioner, Sagar @ Golu, sought regular bail in FIR No. 487/2018, Police Station Bawana, registered for offences under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, at approximately 7:30 PM on 26 December 2018, police received information that a dead body was lying at Bawana Bus Stand. The Investigating Officer reached the spot and found an unidentified body lying in a pool of blood with a bullet injury.
No eyewitness was initially found. The body was taken to hospital, where the deceased was declared brought dead, and the FIR was registered for murder and Arms Act offences.
During investigation, Bhavik, son of deceased Manoj, approached the Investigating Officer and stated that he had witnessed Ritik shoot his father.
After Ritik was arrested, he allegedly made a statement while in police custody naming Sagar @ Golu as one of the accomplices who had accompanied him at the time of the incident. The petitioner was thereafter apprehended and arrested.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner could continue to be denied bail when the only substantive material connecting him to the alleged murder was the custodial confession of co-accused Ritik.
- Whether the petitioner’s refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) constituted sufficient additional material to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity with co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty, who had already been granted bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged gang association and involvement in two other criminal cases justified continued detention despite the absence of independent incriminating evidence in the present case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner principally sought bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty, who had already been granted bail by the Delhi High Court on 28 April 2025.
He contended that there was no independent evidence connecting him to the murder.
The only material relied upon by the prosecution was the statement of alleged shooter Ritik, recorded while Ritik was in police custody.
The petitioner therefore argued that when a similarly situated co-accused had already been enlarged on bail and no additional incriminating evidence existed against him, continued deprivation of his liberty was unjustified.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the application and pointed out that the petitioner was involved in two other criminal cases, although it acknowledged that he was already on bail in both.
Significantly, the APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, fairly conceded that apart from Ritik’s custodial confession, there was no other evidence against the petitioner except his refusal to join the TIP.
The State further admitted that co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty, who had already been granted bail, had also refused to participate in the TIP.
Counsel representing the deceased’s family separately opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly a member of the Rajesh Bawania gang, which had enmity with the Neeraj Bawania gang, of which the deceased was allegedly a member.
Analysis of the Law
The order does not undertake an elaborate doctrinal discussion of the law governing bail. Instead, the Court focused upon the evidentiary material actually available against the petitioner and the principle of parity.
The crucial factor was that the prosecution could identify no independent incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the murder apart from:
- the custodial statement of co-accused Ritik; and
- the petitioner’s refusal to join TIP.
The Court also considered that the similarly situated co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty had refused TIP yet had already been granted bail.
Thus, at the bail stage, the Court found no sufficient basis for treating the petitioner differently from the co-accused who had already obtained liberty.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or discuss any reported precedent.
The Court’s determination was fact-specific and rested principally upon:
- absence of independent incriminating evidence;
- the nature of the material relied upon against the petitioner;
- the State’s express concession regarding the evidentiary position; and
- parity with co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty.
Accordingly, no separate precedent-based legal proposition was formulated in the order.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found it significant that except for the custodial confession of co-accused Ritik, no other evidence connecting Sagar @ Golu with the alleged offence had been shown to the Court.
Although the prosecution relied additionally upon the petitioner’s refusal to participate in TIP, this factor did not materially distinguish his position because Sandeep @ Bunty had likewise refused TIP and had nevertheless already been granted bail.
The allegation that the petitioner belonged to a rival gang was also insufficient to overcome the absence of incriminating evidence connecting him with the specific offence for which bail was sought.
The Court additionally recorded that the deceased himself had been involved in 15 heinous criminal cases, including offences under TADA, though this was not treated as a justification for the killing.
Ultimately, Justice Girish Kathpalia held that since no incriminating evidence existed beyond Ritik’s custodial statement and a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, there was “no reason to deny further liberty” to the petitioner.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the regular bail application of Sagar @ Golu.
The Court held that the prosecution had not shown any independent incriminating evidence against him apart from the custodial confession of co-accused Ritik, while co-accused Sandeep @ Bunty had already received bail in comparable circumstances.
The petitioner was therefore directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.
Case Details
Case: Sagar @ Golu v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2491/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7494/2026; CNR No. DLHC010357042026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 07 August 2026
Result: Regular bail granted; petitioner ordered to be released on a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount.
