-
by sayum
07 July 2026 10:48 AM
“When Trial Crawls and Evidence Falters, Liberty Must Prevail” – Delhi High Court granting bail to undertrial Rahul @ Moni @ Sannothiya, who had spent over six years in custody for his alleged role in a murder and conspiracy case. Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a detailed and constitutionally rooted judgment, held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be justified solely on the seriousness of the charge.
“Prolonged pre-trial detention infringes upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21… regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offense.” [Para 8]
The Court underscored that when trial stagnates, evidence loses weight, and key witnesses resile, the presumption of innocence must find expression in grant of bail.
A 2018 Killing Allegedly Born from a Gangland Grudge
The case arose from a fatal shooting that occurred on 10 October 2018 in Dheerpur, Delhi. According to the prosecution, a group of individuals—including the Petitioner—had conspired to confront and possibly eliminate Parvesh @ Bhola over unpaid dues allegedly owed to co-accused Rahul @ Ganni. During this confrontation, Shyam Sunder, who intervened, was shot and killed.
The prosecution claimed the Petitioner fired the fatal shot and also attempted to shoot Bhola, who managed to escape. A firearm recovered from the Petitioner ten days after the incident was linked, through a ballistic report issued nearly a year later, to the bullet recovered from the deceased. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 302, 307, 120B IPC and Arms Act provisions, and the Petitioner was arrested on 27 October 2018.
"Eyewitness Refused to Identify the Accused — A Shaken Pillar of Prosecution"
The credibility of the prosecution’s case took a significant hit when its key eyewitness, Parvesh @ Bhola (PW-7)—initially the linchpin of the narrative—failed to identify the Petitioner in court. The Court emphasized that this created a foundational crack in the case:
“The sole eyewitness has resiled from his previous statements and failed to identify the accused in Court.” [Para 7]
This weakened the reliability of other circumstantial elements, particularly the call detail records that placed the Petitioner at the scene. The Court held such digital evidence, in absence of corroboration from human testimony, "does not justify prolonged custody."
“Recovery of Weapon Delayed and Chain of Custody Unclear – Bail Cannot Be Denied on Forensic Guesswork”
The Court critically examined the ballistic evidence, which allegedly linked the Petitioner to the murder weapon. Though the bullet recovered from the deceased matched the firearm recovered from the Petitioner, the weapon was seized 10 days after the incident, and no proof was furnished regarding its custody or chain of possession.
“The delay in recovery, and lack of proper custody, cast serious doubt on the integrity of the prosecution’s case.” [Para 6]
Drawing support from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pancho v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that delayed and unexplained recovery weakens probative value, and any forensic link must withstand trial scrutiny, not just investigatory assumption.
“When the Main Accused is Free, Detaining a Co-Accused is an Injustice”
A significant factor tipping the balance was parity with co-accused. The alleged mastermind Rahul @ Ganni and all other accused had already been released on bail. The Court was clear:
“Parity necessitates that similarly placed accused should receive similar treatment, barring any distinguishing factors.” [Para 5]
While the prosecution argued that the recovery of the weapon made the Petitioner’s role distinct, the Court disagreed, pointing out the lack of corroborative proof linking the Petitioner to the weapon at the time of the shooting.
“The Right to Speedy Trial Is Not Illusory – Six Years Is Too Long”
Perhaps the most compelling ground for relief was the Petitioner’s six-year-long pre-trial detention. Only 22 of 39 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and with several procedural stages pending, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reinforced:
“Detaining an undertrial for an extended period, specifically six to seven years, without reaching a verdict, violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial.” [Para 8]
This observation was not merely rhetorical. The Court meticulously reviewed a report from the District and Sessions Judge, which cited repeated delays due to missing witnesses, pending sanctions, FSL reports, and non-production of the accused. Justice Narula noted:
“The trial, by all estimates, may take at least another one and a half years to conclude.”
“Past Allegations Cannot Eclipse Present Liberty”
Responding to the State’s argument about the Petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents, the Court reiterated that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be the basis for indefinite incarceration. The Court emphasized:
“It is well-settled that mere pendency of criminal cases against the accused cannot be the sole ground for denying bail.” [Para 9]
Moreover, interim bail granted to the Petitioner on three occasions had not been misused. No adverse conduct was reported. This reinforced the Court’s confidence in granting bail.
Bail Allowed with Safeguards, Not as Leniency but as Constitutional Right
Justice Narula’s order is not just an individual relief but a reminder of the enduring vitality of Article 21 in criminal jurisprudence. The judgment serves as a reiteration that liberty cannot be hostage to procedural lethargy or evidentiary vagueness.
“Liberty is not a gift of the Court; it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution… When trial stagnates and evidence wanes, continued incarceration violates both justice and law.”
The Petitioner was granted regular bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000, with standard restrictions on travel and communication with witnesses.
Date of Decision: 20 May 2025
