Ms. Mahima Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

¶1

$~2 & 3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 KHUSHI RAM @ AJAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepanshu Goswami, Ms. Kirti Chauhan and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State Insp. Harun Ahmed and Insp. Mantosh Kumar, PS Shalimar Bagh + BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 MS. MAHIMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirayu Sharma, Advocate versus STATE(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State Insp. Harun Ahmed and Insp. Mantosh Kumar, PS Shalimar Bagh

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 06.07.2026

¶8

Both the applicants, who are facing murder charges, have prayed for regular bail.

¶9

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is to the effect that on 04.01.2020, complainant Manoj Kumar reported that his brother Sat Narain was missing.

¶10

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 1

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 08/07/2026 at 11:39:04

¶13

Accused Mahima @ Renu (applicant herein) happens to be wife of Sat Narain and during investigation, it was gathered that she was having illicit relationship with one Khushi Ram (other applicant), who was residing in the same vicinity. Complainant suspected that they both had kidnapped his brother and murdered him.

¶14

During investigation, one Sanay (owner of New Subhash Tent House) was examined who revealed that his two employees viz. Sonu and Suresh (two other accused in the present case) had left the job just before the incident, claiming that they were going to their village Satna. Police scrutinized call details record of Khushi Ram, Sonu, Suresh and Sat Narain (deceased herein) and locations of their mobiles were found to be near District Centre, Shalimar Bagh.

¶15

Accused Sonu was apprehended and when interrogated, he disclosed about the commission of aforesaid murder by him with the help of his associates. Dead body was also, eventually, recovered.

¶16

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that all the four accused persons are facing trial for commission of offences under Section 302/365/120-B/34 IPC. 6. According to prosecution, there was illicit relationship between the present two applicants and even children of deceased had stated during the investigation that applicant Khushi Ram used to visit their home in the absence of their father. There is also testimony with respect to “ last seen ” and prosecution strongly relies upon statement of PW Kamlesh.

¶17

It will be worthwhile to mention that earlier also bail application had been filed by applicant Khushi Ram which was dismissed as withdrawn with the direction to learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. Aforesaid direction was passed keeping in mind the fact that the judicial custody of the applicant

¶18

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 2

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 08/07/2026 at 11:39:04

¶21

was of more than five years.

¶22

Fact, however, remains that trial is yet not over.

¶23

Period of incarceration of both the applicants is more than six years as per Nominal Rolls available on record and the applicants do not have any prior involvement of any nature whatsoever and their conduct inside the jail is also reported to be satisfactory.

¶24

Learned Addl. P.P. for State, on instructions from IO, submits that all the material public witnesses, including last seen, children of the deceased and complainant himself have entered into witness box.

¶25

There are in all 27 witnesses and 11 witnesses are yet to be examined and, therefore, there is no likelihood of trial getting completed in near future, particularly, in view of the fact that there are multiple accused in the ongoing trial.

¶26

Learned counsel for applicants submit that prosecution story is merely based on few stray circumstances and there are glaring missing links. 13. Fact, however, remains that this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that incarceration period is already, substantially, high and both the applicants are in judicial custody for last more than six years, with no immediate prospect of trial getting completed in near future. This is despite the fact that there was a direction by this Court to expedite the trial.

¶27

This Court, in order to uphold the objective enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in its true letter and spirit, finds no reason to disallow the bail. Reference be made to Deepak Tiwari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7810, Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 and order dated 24.02.2026 in BAIL APPLN.3794/2024 titled Saif Ali @ Saif Khan vs. State Govt. of NCT of

¶28

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 3

¶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 08/07/2026 at 11:39:04

¶31

Delhi .

¶32

Reference be also made to Sunil Bihari Alias Shakti Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi): 2025:DHC:11035 where the accused therein, who was also facing murder charge, was granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 08.12.2025 on account of prolonged incarceration, while observing as under:-

¶33

“23. Once the applicant undisputedly is in continuous incarceration since 08.06.2018 and once it is clear that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the applicant cannot be denied benefit of bail on the sole criteria of his implication in previous FIRs and the fact that the accused was once declared proclaimed offender.

¶34

24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb: AIR 2021 SC 712 held that once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible, and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

¶35

25. The investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of chargesheet followed by framing of charges and the material witnesses have already been examined by the learned Trial Court.

¶36

26. The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. However, appropriate conditions ought to be put to allay the apprehension of the applicant tampering with the evidence or evading the trial.”

¶37

Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances, albeit, without expressing any opinion over the merits of the case, applicants are hereby admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/each with one surety each of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Judicial Magistrate First Class with following conditions:-

¶38

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 4

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 08/07/2026 at 11:39:04

¶41

(a) Surety would be local.

¶42

(b) Applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court regularly on date(s) fixed.

¶43

(c) Applicant/accused shall not come in contact of the witnesses, directly or indirectly.

¶44

(d) The applicant/accused shall not leave NCR of Delhi without permission of learned Trial Court.

¶45

(e) The applicant/accused shall provide their respective mobile numbers to the investigating officer and shall keep the same operational all the time till the disposal of the case.

¶46

The applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶47

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and also to the Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

¶48

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶49

JULY 6, 2026/ dr/sy

¶50

BAIL APPLN. 325/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 659/2026 5

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 08/07/2026 at 11:39:04

Ms. Mahima v. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Mahima v. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Gaurav & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vijay Pandey and Others Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ritika & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dimpy Chugh Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Rohit & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.