"Bail Cannot Be Denied Indefinitely Without Justification" – Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case

"Two Years in Jail Without Trial is a Violation of Liberty" – Court Releases Accused Citing Delayed Proceedings and Lack of Direct Evidence The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be indefinitely kept in custody when trial proceedings are delayed, and evidence against them is not conclusive. Granting bail to Iqrar Ahmed @ Afzal, who was accused in a murder and assault case, the Court held that judicial discretion must balance personal liberty with the seriousness of the charges.

Delivering the judgment in BAIL APPLN. 377/2024, Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that pre-trial incarceration for over two years, with trial proceedings still at an early stage, violates the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Court also noted that the trial court had already dropped murder charges (Section 302 IPC) against the accused, weakening the prosecution’s case.

Background: A Street Quarrel Escalates into Murder Charges

The case originated from a midnight altercation on October 12-13, 2022, near Chawla Bakery, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Adnan, Huzaifa, Aqdas, and the petitioner, Iqrar Ahmed @ Afzal, assaulted the deceased, Nitesh, and his friends using bricks and stones. The police initially booked the accused under Sections 308, 302, 202, 212, and 34 of the IPC after Nitesh succumbed to his injuries at Safdarjung Hospital on October 16, 2022.

The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR and was arrested two months after the incident based on the statement of an eyewitness, Alok Dubey, recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 304(1), 308, and 34 IPC, dropping the murder charge under Section 302 IPC.

Despite these developments, the petitioner remained in judicial custody for over two years, prompting his bail plea.

High Court's Observations: "Delay in Trial and Lack of Direct Evidence Favor Bail"

The Delhi High Court found that the trial court had already reduced the charges against the petitioner, yet he remained in jail without substantial progress in the trial. The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without conviction is contrary to constitutional principles and Supreme Court guidelines.

Justice Shalinder Kaur stated that "while the gravity of the offense cannot be ignored, courts must ensure that pre-trial detention does not turn into punishment. The prosecution has cited 33 witnesses, but only two have been examined so far. The delay in trial and absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the fatal injury weigh in favor of bail."

The Court also noted that the petitioner was not seen in CCTV footage as an active assailant, and his name surfaced much later in the investigation, raising concerns over the credibility of the delayed witness statement.

Court Finds Parity with Co-Accused Who Was Already Granted Bail

The Court considered the principle of parity, observing that co-accused Aqdas was granted bail by the High Court on March 4, 2025. While the prosecution argued that Aqdas played a lesser role, the Court found no significant distinction in their alleged involvement, making the continued detention of the petitioner unjustified.

Final Judgment: Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Iqrar Ahmed @ Afzal, directing his release upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety. The Court imposed the following conditions:

The accused must report to the Ranjit Nagar police station every Saturday between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM.

He must surrender his passport and cannot leave India without prior permission.

He is prohibited from contacting the victim’s family or tampering with evidence.

He must provide his active mobile number to the investigating officer and keep it operational at all times.

Justice Shalinder Kaur, concluding the ruling, emphasized that "this order does not reflect on the merits of the case. The prosecution will have full opportunity to present its evidence during the trial, but the accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely without conviction."

Conclusion: A Strong Precedent Reinforcing the Right to Bail in Delayed Trials

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in BAIL APPLN. 377/2024 underscores the principle that bail should not be denied merely based on the severity of charges, especially when the trial is delayed and direct evidence is lacking. The decision reinforces the constitutional guarantee that pre-trial detention must not become a form of punishment and that judicial discretion must safeguard both justice and personal liberty.

Date of decision: 19/03/2025