-
by Admin
01 February 2026 12:20 PM
“Contradictory Testimonies, Hostile Witnesses, and Dormant Evidence Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody” – In a significant ruling Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Shukvinder Singh @ Sanju, an undertrial accused in a murder case involving allegations of gang conspiracy and firearm usage, observing that continued incarceration of over six years and nine months without trial conclusion is unjustified and violative of the right to personal liberty.
Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that “the accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period to await the outcome of the trial,” especially when key prosecution witnesses have turned hostile or contradicted themselves, and the remaining evidence lacks substantial probative value.
The FIR dated 01.02.2019 registered at PS Narela Industrial Area, alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with other accused including a known gangster, had murdered one Vikas using firearms near Maan Public School. The petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2019 and had remained in custody since then.
“Eye-Witness Turns Hostile, Another Contradicts Identification – Bail Cannot Be Denied on Unreliable Evidence”
The Court closely examined the evidence presented so far in trial and found that the two prime eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution’s case in any reliable manner. One of them, PW-6 Sumit, completely turned hostile and stated he did not recognize the accused, even when confronted. The other, PW-5 Hansraj, first named the petitioner as a shooter in his examination-in-chief, but reversed his stand in cross-examination and said the assailants had their faces covered, rendering identification unreliable.
“The fact that one eye-witness did not support the prosecution at all, and the other took a diametrically opposite stand in cross-examination, tilts the balance in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail,” the Court held, making it clear that it was not conducting a mini-trial but only considering the reliability of material evidence for bail purposes.
“CCTV Footage and Mobile Evidence Don’t Support Prosecution – Crime Scene Out of Range”
On the issue of electronic evidence, the Court made sharp observations about the limited usefulness of CCTV footage and mobile phone data. The footage relied upon by the prosecution was found to be from a school gate camera, which did not cover the actual scene of crime. The footage only showed the movement of vehicles, which the Court held was insufficient to connect the petitioner to the actual shooting.
As for the mobile phone of PW-6, which was supposedly important to the case, it remained unexamined by the FSL as it could not be switched on or charged. The Court thus ruled that such electronic evidence was of no avail at the stage of bail.
“Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Is Injustice – Bail Is a Safeguard, Not a Reward”
Noting that only 6 out of 44 prosecution witnesses had been examined even after nearly seven years of custody, the Court condemned the sluggish pace of the trial, despite its own previous directions to expedite proceedings. The nominal roll showed the petitioner had been in custody since February 2019, and the trial still had no visible conclusion in sight.
“The conclusion of trial does not appear to be anywhere in sight in the near future… petitioner cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period,” the Court observed, reiterating that bail is an essential safeguard in criminal justice, not a reward or concession.
“Criminal Antecedents Cannot Be Sole Ground to Deny Bail”
Responding to the State’s objection based on the petitioner’s past criminal record and alleged gang affiliations, the Court clarified that the pendency of other cases cannot form the sole basis for denying bail. The nominal roll revealed that the petitioner was already on bail in those cases, and his jail conduct for the past year had been satisfactory.
“Availability of petitioner during trial can be ensured by imposing appropriate conditions,” the Court held while affirming that preventive detention cannot be used to punish a person prior to conviction.
Stringent Bail Conditions Imposed to Secure Trial Attendance
While granting regular bail, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety and imposed multiple conditions to ensure his continued presence and prevent tampering with the process of law. He is required to remain within the NCR region unless permitted otherwise, provide his mobile number to the IO, refrain from contacting any witness, and report twice a month at the police station.
The Court made it clear that “in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the State or the complainant shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.”
At the same time, it also clarified that the observations made in this judgment are only for the purpose of bail consideration and shall not be construed as findings on the merits of the case.
A Caution Against Unending Trials and Overreliance on Weak Evidence
This ruling reinforces the principle that pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, especially when evidence against the accused becomes questionable and the trial is nowhere near completion. The Delhi High Court has made it clear that bail is not about absolution, but about protecting constitutional rights in the absence of conclusive proof or expeditious trial.
In a legal system often plagued by delays, this judgment stands as a reminder that liberty cannot be indefinitely sacrificed at the altar of pendency.
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
