Suraj Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

Suraj Vs State NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner Suraj s/o Digar Singh Mehto admitted to regular bail pending trial, subject to conditions: personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with 01 surety in like amount from his father to the satisfaction of the trial court; not to leave Uttarakhand without trial-court permission (except travel to/from Delhi for hearings) and ordinarily to reside at the prison-record/petition address; presentation before S.H.O., P.S. Nachini, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand every alternate Wednesday between 11 am and 11:30 am (not kept waiting longer than an hour); cellphone number furnished to IO kept active at all times; no contact with, inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witnesses, no tampering with evidence; prompt written information to IO of any change of residential address/contact details; attendance at every hearing unless exempted by the trial court. Copy of order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, charged under S.302 IPC in FIR No.132/2020 (P.S. Kotwali, North District, Delhi) and detained as an undertrial for more than six years, with 22 of 27 prosecution witnesses already examined, should be enlarged on regular bail notwithstanding the State's flight-risk apprehension. +1 more

Court's answer

On a conspectus of the facts, essentially because the petitioner had remained in judicial custody for a prolonged period as an undertrial and all public witnesses had already been examined before the learned trial court (remaining witnesses being police officials), the court was persuaded to allow the bail petition, even though the flight-risk apprehension could not be ruled out; the nominal roll showed satisfactory jail conduct in the preceding year and no other criminal involvement.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, Suraj s/o Digar Singh Mehto, was admitted to regular bail pending trial, subject to conditions: personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount from his father; no departure from Uttarakhand without trial-court permission save for travel to Delhi for hearings; reporting before the S.H.O., P.S. Nachini, Pithoragarh every alternate Wednesday between 11 am and 11:30 am; furnishing and keeping active a cellphone number for the IO; abstaining from contact with, or inducement of, prosecution witnesses and from tampering with evidence; prompt written intimation of any change of address/contact details to the IO; and attendance at every hearing unless exempted by the trial court.

Key takeaways

Nothing in the order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter; the classification question (S.302 IPC vis-a-vis Part II of S.304 IPC) stands expressly left open.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.; order dated 07.05.2026 in BAIL APPLN. 233/2026) allowed a regular-bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 arising from FIR No.132/2020 dated 13.03.2020, P.S. Kotwali, North District, Delhi, under S.302 IPC. The petitioner, an undertrial who had undergone more than six years of judicial custody, was alleged (per counsel's reading of the chargesheet) to have struck the deceased — both being vagabonds — with a broken bottle during a scuffle, causing incised neck wounds resulting in death; counsel urged the case was at worst culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of S.304 IPC. With the trial underway, 22 of 27 prosecution witnesses already examined and all remaining witnesses being police officials, and the nominal roll showing satisfactory jail conduct in the last year and no other criminal involvement, the court held that although the State's flight-risk apprehension (vagabond petitioner, permanent address Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand) could not be ruled out, the prolonged custodial period as an undertrial and completion of public-witness testimony could not be ignored. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount from the petitioner's father, coupled with conditions restricting movement to Uttarakhand (save Delhi court appearances), alternate-Wednesday reporting at S.H.O., P.S. Nachini, Pithoragarh (11:00–11:30 am), constant availability on a cellphone number furnished to the IO, non-contact with prosecution witnesses and non-tampering with evidence, prompt written notice of address/contact changes to the IO, and attendance at every hearing. The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits; the father had filed the petition as pairokar and undertook responsibility for the petitioner.

$~10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- BAIL APPLN. 233/2026

SURAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaiveir with Mr. Irshad, Mr. Amaan, Mr. Shahruk, Ms. Tamanna, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. Insp. Gyan Prakash and Insp. Sanjay Kumar, P.S.: Kotwali.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

% 07.05.2026

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.132/2020 dated 13.03.2020 registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: Kotwali, North District, Delhi.

Notice on this petition was issued on 20.01.2026.

Status Report dated 18.03.2026 has been filed.

Nominal Roll dated 09.03.2026 has been received from the Jail Superintendent.

Vidé order dated 20.01.2026, intimation was issued to the next-of-kin of the deceased. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing for the State informs the court, that the deceased as well as the petitioner were vagabonds; and therefore it has not been possible to trace the next-ofkin of the deceased.

BAIL APPLN. 233/2026 Page 1 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 11:54:21

Mr. Jaiveir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that a perusal of the chargesheet would show that the offence alleged against the petitioner arises in the context of a scuffle that took place between the petitioner and the deceased, both of whom were vagabonds at the relevant time. It is submitted that the allegation is that the petitioner struck the victim with a broken bottle and caused incised wounds on his neck, which led to the victim’s death.

Counsel submits, that the circumstances in which the incident occurred would show, that it was not a case of murder under section 302 of the IPC, but at worst, a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of section 304 of the IPC.

Counsel further submits, that the trial in the matter is underway and 22 out of 27 prosecution witnesses have already been examined; with all remaining witnesses being police officials.

Mr. Jaiveir further submits, that in the meantime, the petitioner has served more than 06 years of judicial custody as an undertrial.

Counsel accordingly prays, that the petitioner be enlarged on regular bail to enable him to prepare his defence.

Upon query, Mr. Jaiveir states, that though earlier the petitioner was a vagabond in Delhi, but it will be noticed that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner’s father as his pairokar ; and the father is therefore now ready and willing to take responsibility of the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. Haider opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner, principally on the ground that since the petitioner was a vagabond and his permanent address is shown as Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, the petitioner is a flight-risk.

BAIL APPLN. 233/2026 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 11:54:21

Though the apprehension expressed by learned APP that the petitioner is a flight-risk cannot be ruled-out, this court is of the view that the fact that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for more than 06 years as an undertrial, also cannot be ignored.

The nominal roll shows that the petitioner has undergone more than 06 years of judicial custody as of date; his jail conduct in the last one year has been ‘satisfactory’; and that he has no other criminal involvement.

Upon a conspectus of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and essentially on the grounds that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a prolonged period of time as an undertrial, and all public witnesses have already been examined before the learned trial court, this court is persuaded to allow the present petition.

Accordingly, the petitioner – Suraj s/o Digar Singh Mehto – is admitted to regular bail pending trial, subject to the following conditions:

16.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the like amount from his father, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

16.2. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Uttarakhand without permission of the learned trial court, except for travelling to and from Delhi to appear before the learned trial court, and shall ordinarily reside at the address as per prison records/as mentioned in the present petition;

16.3. The petitioner shall present himself before the S.H.O, P.S.: Nachini, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand every alternate Wednesday

BAIL APPLN. 233/2026 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 11:54:21

between 11 am and 11:30 am to mark his presence. However, he will not be kept waiting longer than an hour for this purpose;

16.4. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

16.5. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial;

16.6. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing; and

16.7. The petitioner shall attend every date of hearing before the learned trial court, unless exempted by that court.

Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending matter.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith .

The petition stands disposed-of in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

MAY 7, 2026/ ds

BAIL APPLN. 233/2026 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/05/2026 at 11:54:21