Allowed¶25

Arvind Paswan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC9 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail; Section 483 BNSS; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 307/397/34 IPC; FIR No. 266/2017 PS Amar Colony; dacoity/murder; proclaimed offender (PO); no direct eye-witness evidence; recovery and test identification parade; 37 of 55 witnesses examined; 8.5 years' incarceration; bail granted subject to Trial Court conditions; Delhi High Court; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; Arvind Paswan

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. ¶25

Arvind Paswan Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Arvind Paswan, arraigned in FIR No. 266/2017 (PS Amar Colony) for offences punishable under Sections 307/397/34 IPC, should be released on regular bail under Section 483 read with Section 528 BNSS, in view of his about 8.5 years' incarceration, the absence of direct eye-witness evidence against him, his earlier declaration as a proclaimed offender, and trial progress (only 37 of 55 witnesses examined).

¶10

Court's answer

There is no allegation against the applicant of direct commission of murder or robbery; his alleged role is confined to assisting the main accused persons in the commission of the offence.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Only 37 out of 55 witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial, a factor bearing on continued incarceration.

¶24

Key takeaways

Bearing in mind the overall testimony against the applicant/petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone about 8.5 years' incarceration, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), BAIL APPLN. 366/2025, decided 09.07.2026 — Regular-bail application under Section 483 read with Section 528 BNSS concerning FIR No. 266/2017, PS Amar Colony, for offences punishable under Sections 307/397/34 IPC. The Trial Court's order dated 01.06.2024 refusing bail had recorded that there was no direct eye-witness evidence of the accused's involvement in the dacoity/murder, complicity resting on recovery of jewellery articles and cash at his instance and a test identification parade; it had also noted his declaration as a proclaimed offender (PO). The Court found (i) no allegation of direct commission of murder or robbery against the applicant, whose alleged role was confined to assisting the main accused, and (ii) only 37 of 55 witnesses examined, with no possibility of early conclusion of trial. Bearing in mind the overall testimony and the about 8.5 years' incarceration already undergone, the applicant was directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court; the application stood disposed of.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 366/2025 ARVIND PASWAN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Dolly Sharma, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶7

Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 09.07.2026

¶10

The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 528 of the BNSS seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 266/2017 for offence punishable under Section 307/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at PS Amar Colony.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the criminal proceedings. It is pointed out that the applicant has already suffered sufficient incarceration. He is in custody since 29.11.2017. As per nominal roll 8.5 years’ incarceration has already been undergone by the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant did not have any active role in the commission of robbery and murder and there is no direct evidence against the applicant. It is further

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:02

¶15

submitted that the 3 out of 6 accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that only 37 out of the 55 witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility of early completion of trial.

¶16

The submissions are opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State who contends that 3 accused persons, who have been granted bail, are differently situated. He submits that there is evidence against the applicant. The recovery was made and the same has been identified by the complainant. It submits that the CDR of the applicant clearly reflects his location at the place of incident at the time of commission of the offence. The prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution.

¶17

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record.

¶18

Even the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the applicant’s bail application unequivocally records that there is no direct evidence through eye witness against the accused regarding his involvement in the dacoity/murder. It is on the basis of various other factors i.e. the recovery of jewellery articles and cash at the instance of the applicant, the test identification parade was carried out and the applicant’s complicity was found.

¶19

The Trial Court has also noted that the applicant was declared proclaimed offender (PO), therefore, there is possibility of his being absconding from the prosecution of the trial.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant did not have any information regarding the FIR in question and, therefore, he was declared PO. It is, however, submitted that he was granted interim

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:02

¶23

bail on 29.08.2023 and he surrendered timely and has obeyed the terms and conditions thereto.

¶24

It is found that against the applicant, there is no allegation of commission of murder or robbery. The allegation against the applicant is of assistance to the main accused persons in the commission of the offence in question. It is also seen that only 37 out of the 55 witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.

¶25

Bearing in mind the overall testimony against the petitioner and the fact that the applicant has already undergone about 8.5 years’ incarceration, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail subject to the conditions to be imposed of the Trial Court.

¶26

With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶28

JULY 9, 2026 aks

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:02

Arvind Paswan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Paswan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Shain@ Shahin Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Manish Kumar Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Ajay Rajput Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Ranjeet Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Lakra Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Shitij Vs State through SHO & Anr.