High Court Grants Bail to Murder Accused After 7.5 Years of Incarceration: A Landmark Decision on Prolonged Detention and Trial Delay
The High Court of Delhi has granted regular bail to Sunil Bihari (alias Shakti Singh) in a murder case despite the serious nature of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment, delivered on December 8, 2025, by Justice Amit Mahajan in Bail Application 4074/2025, represents a significant judicial pronouncement on the principle that prolonged detention without trial progress can itself constitute sufficient grounds for bail, independent of the strength of the prosecution’s case. This decision underscores the constitutional imperative to ensure that pretrial detention does not become punitive and reinforces the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
The Facts and Background of the Case
The case originated from a murder that occurred on or around June 23, 2017, at New Delhi Railway Station (NDRS), where a young boy named Yogesh Kumar Gautam was found dead. An FIR (No. 605/2017) was registered on June 24, 2017, under Section 302 of the IPC following the discovery of the deceased’s body. According to the prosecution’s allegations, Yogesh Kumar Gautam was part of a group of ragpickers working at the railway station, which included the accused Sunil Bihari, co-accused Arif, and co-accused Dharmender. The prosecution alleged that the accused individuals shared their income and that on the date of the incident, they had an altercation with the victim, during which they beat him to death with bricks, stones, and a beer bottle in a drunken state.[1]
During the investigation, co-accused Sarvan was arrested and interrogated, and it was through his disclosure that the police learned of Sunil Bihari’s alleged involvement. Notably, Sunil Bihari was arrested nearly one year after the alleged incident, on June 7, 2018. The prosecution subsequently filed a chargesheet against him under Sections 302, 34, 120B, and 201 of the IPC. Section 34 pertains to criminal acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention, Section 120B relates to criminal conspiracy, and Section 201 addresses the act of causing disappearance of evidence.[1]
Arguments Presented by the Defence Counsel
The defence counsel advanced several compelling arguments in support of the bail application. First, it was submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case with no recovery of any incriminating material against him. The counsel argued that Sunil Bihari’s arrest came approximately one year after the alleged incident based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused Sarvan and Dharmender, raising questions about the reliability of the evidence.[1]
A critical argument centered on the failure of eyewitness identification. The defence highlighted that two public witnesses named Rohit and Deva, who had initially implicated the applicant during the investigation, failed to identify him in court during the trial and subsequently turned hostile. This development significantly weakened the prosecution’s case by removing what would have been crucial eyewitness testimony.[1]
The defence further pointed out that while the mother of the deceased, Smt. Dhan Devi Seema, testified that she received a phone call from an unknown number on June 23, 2017, demanding ransom of ₹12,000 for saving her son’s life, she had identified the caller as the applicant based on voice alone. However, the defence emphasized that no voice sample of the applicant was taken to compare with the alleged ransom call, leaving this critical piece of evidence unverified through scientific means.[1]
Most significantly, the defence underscored the extraordinary delay in the trial’s conclusion. Out of 54 witnesses in total, only 13 had been examined till the time of filing the application. The accused had been in judicial custody for nearly eight years, yet the trial showed no signs of concluding expeditiously in the near future.[1]
The Prosecution’s Counter-Arguments
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature and the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender and was involved in multiple cases. The prosecution contended that the accused was declared proclaimed offender, elevating concerns about his flight risk. Additionally, the State submitted that the case was at the stage of prosecution evidence and there existed a strong apprehension that if released on bail, the applicant may attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.[1]
The Court’s Legal Analysis and Reasoning
The Bail Framework Under Indian Law
The High Court, while considering the bail application, correctly identified the settled legal principles governing the grant of bail in India. Justice Mahajan noted that courts, while considering applications for bail, must keep in mind several factors including: whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence; the nature and gravity of the accusation; the severity of the punishment in case of conviction; the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; and reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened. However, the court emphasized that the period of incarceration is also a relevant factor that must be considered in the overall assessment.[1]
This is an important articulation of bail jurisprudence, as it acknowledges that while the traditional factors of flight risk, evidence tampering, and gravity of the charge are important, the duration of detention itself acquires legal significance and can tip the balance in favor of granting bail.
Prolonged Detention as a Ground for Fresh Bail Application
The High Court made a particularly significant observation regarding the principle of prolonged detention as a ground for reconsideration of bail. The court noted that a previous bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on December 19, 2023, and another was withdrawn on December 13, 2024, after nearly one year in custody following that withdrawal. Justice Mahajan held that this further incarceration of almost one year constituted a ground to move for bail afresh.[1]
The court went further to articulate an important principle: this approach is consistent with the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment that prolonged detention can itself be a ground for reconsideration of bail, independent of the earlier dismissal, thereby not constituting a review but rather a fresh consideration under changed conditions. This aligns with the judicial imperative to ensure that detention prior to trial does not become punitive and is in accordance with the principles of justice and liberty.[1]
The High Court emphasized that it is well settled law that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and that the bail application can be considered on its own merits, even if filed repeatedly. The court articulated the principle that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances. This approach emphasizes that the law prefers bail over jail and aims to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system.[1]
The Role of the Supreme Court’s Precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
Justice Mahajan relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (AIR 2021 SC 712) to support the grant of bail. The court cited the Supreme Court’s holding 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. This principle shifts the burden from the traditional bail criteria to the reality of procedural delays.[1]
The K.A. Najeeb case involved an accused arrested in 2015 for offences under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who had spent over five years in custody while his trial was nowhere near conclusion, with over 276 witnesses yet to be examined. The Supreme Court granted bail despite the stringent provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA that normally make bail almost impossible in such cases. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution could override even statutory restrictions on bail.[2][3][4]
Hostile Witnesses and Doubt in Prosecution Case
The High Court noted that while the appreciation of testimony of material witnesses is ultimately a matter for the trial court, once eyewitnesses have turned hostile, some doubt is necessarily created in the prosecution’s version of events. Justice Mahajan cited the settled principle from Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, which establishes that in the event of there being even some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to bail.[1]
The principle underlying this rule is that hostile witnesses significantly undermine the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative. When witnesses who initially supported the prosecution case turn hostile during trial, it creates reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s allegations. In the present case, two public witnesses named Rohit and Deva, who had initially implicated the applicant during investigation, failed to identify him in court and turned hostile, creating precisely this kind of doubt.
Prior Criminal History as Non-Conclusive Factor
The court also noted that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender in 2018 and had pending criminal cases. However, the court held that once the applicant has been in continuous incarceration since June 8, 2018, and once it is clear that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, the applicant cannot be denied the benefit of bail solely on the criteria of his implication in previous FIRs and the fact that the accused was once declared proclaimed offender. Additionally, the court noted that the last of the other pending cases against the applicant was registered back in 2013, suggesting that these were not recent criminal activities.[1]
This holding is important as it rejects the mechanical application of criminal history as a permanent bar to bail. While criminal history remains a relevant factor, it cannot be the sole criterion for denying bail when other considerations such as prolonged detention and trial delay weigh heavily in favor of bail.
The Purpose of Incarceration
Justice Mahajan clarified an important principle regarding the purpose of pretrial detention. The court stated that 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 in constitutional jurisprudence. However, the court acknowledged that appropriate conditions should be imposed to allay the apprehension of the applicant tampering with evidence or evading the trial.[1]
This articulation distinguishes between the legitimate use of jail as a mechanism to ensure trial attendance and its illegitimate use as a punitive measure before conviction. Under Indian constitutional law, as articulated in Article 21, no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. When imprisonment before conviction becomes prolonged and protracted, it risks becoming punitive in nature, which violates constitutional guarantees.
The Bail Conditions Imposed
Despite granting bail, the High Court imposed comprehensive conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering and evidence manipulation:
- Personal Bond: The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond for ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, out of which one surety necessarily had to be a family member, subject to satisfaction of the trial court.[1]
- Non-Interference with Witnesses: The applicant was directed not to directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.[1]
- Trial Appearance: The applicant was required to appear before the learned trial court as and when directed.[1]
- Restriction on Foreign Travel: The applicant was prohibited from leaving the boundaries of the country without permission of the trial court.[1]
- Address Reporting: The applicant was required to provide the address where he would reside after release and to inform the concerned investigating officer (IO) or station house officer (SHO) before making any change of address.[1]
- Mobile Phone Tracking: Upon release, the applicant was required to provide his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and to keep the mobile phone switched on at all times.[1]
- New Offence Clause: The court clarified that in the event of any new FIR, DD entry, or complaint being lodged against the applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.[1]
These conditions represent a balanced approach by the court to address the legitimate concerns of the prosecution while respecting the constitutional right to liberty of the accused.
Significance and Implications of the Judgment
This judgment represents several important developments in Indian bail jurisprudence and deserves close analysis.
1. Reorienting Bail Standards Away from Assumptions of Guilt
Traditional bail jurisprudence in India has often been criticized for operating on the implicit assumption that serious charges (particularly those carrying life imprisonment or death penalty) warrant continued detention regardless of other factors. This judgment challenges that assumption by explicitly stating that the seriousness of the charge alone cannot be the determining factor when the trial is unlikely to conclude expeditiously. The court’s approach is aligned with the constitutional principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that bail is the rule, not the exception.
2. Operationalizing the Right to Speedy Trial
While courts have frequently invoked the right to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, practical implementation has been limited. This judgment provides a concrete mechanism for operationalizing this right by using prolonged trial delay as an independent ground for granting bail. The detailed analysis of trial progress—only 13 out of 54 witnesses examined over a period of nearly eight years—demonstrates how courts can evaluate whether a trial is progressing at a constitutionally acceptable pace.
3. The Time-Weighted Approach to Bail
The judgment introduces what might be called a “time-weighted” approach to bail assessment. Rather than viewing bail as a binary decision made at the time of arrest or the initial bail hearing, the court recognizes that the passage of time itself becomes a relevant factor that can shift the balance in favor of bail. This principle aligns with the observation that “every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain circumstances.” [1]
4. Limiting the Abuse of Serious Charges as Preventive Detention
By granting bail despite the serious nature of the murder charge, the court implicitly rejects the practice of using serious charges as justification for indefinite preventive detention. This has important implications for a criminal justice system where investigation and trial delays are endemic, as they are in India.
5. Managing Hostile Witness Issues Through Trial Progress Rather Than Detention
The judgment acknowledges that hostile witnesses create doubt in the prosecution’s case and addresses this through conditions of bail rather than through continued detention. This reflects a more sophisticated understanding that continued incarceration of the accused will not prevent witnesses from turning hostile if they are motivated to do so by fear, intimidation, or other factors beyond the presence of the accused.
The Broader Context: Trial Delays in Indian Criminal Justice
The judgment takes place within the broader context of a serious crisis in the Indian criminal justice system regarding trial delays. As noted in the judgment, India has a backlog of over 50 million cases, with pre-trial detention contributing significantly to prison overcrowding. More than two-thirds of inmates in Indian prisons are undertrial prisoners awaiting trial rather than convicted prisoners serving sentences.[5][6]
The case itself exemplifies these systemic challenges. The offense allegedly occurred in June 2017, and nearly eight years later, only about 24% of the witnesses have been examined. At this rate of progress, the trial could take decades to conclude. This is not an isolated case but reflects a systemic problem where the machinery of criminal justice moves at a glacial pace.
Justice Mahajan’s judgment represents an attempt by the higher judiciary to create a counterweight to this systemic failure by making bail relief more accessible when trials are demonstrably prolonged and slow-moving. The judgment serves as an important reminder to trial courts and investigating agencies that delayed trials cannot be allowed to become instruments of indefinite preventive detention.
Legal Principles and Precedents Cited
The judgment draws on several important precedents and legal principles:
- Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598: This landmark case established that when there is doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, the accused is ordinarily entitled to bail, particularly when eyewitnesses turn hostile.[7][1]
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (AIR 2021 SC 712): This Supreme Court judgment established that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can override even stringent statutory bail restrictions.[3][4][2][1]
- Constitutional Principle from Article 21: The judgment repeatedly references the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty, emphasizing that imprisonment should not become punitive before conviction.[6][1]
- The “Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception” Principle: This foundational principle, articulated in cases like Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), establishes that arrest and detention are extraordinary measures that must be justified by necessity rather than assumption.[6]
Conclusion
The High Court of Delhi’s decision to grant bail to Sunil Bihari after 7.5 years of incarceration represents a significant articulation of bail jurisprudence in India. By recognizing prolonged detention and trial delay as independent grounds for bail relief, the court has provided a important corrective to the tendency of lower courts to treat serious charges as justification for indefinite pretrial detention.
The judgment acknowledges a fundamental tension in criminal procedure: the duty to investigate serious crimes and bring perpetrators to justice, balanced against the constitutional protection of individual liberty and the right to a speedy trial. Justice Mahajan’s approach suggests that when this balance tilts heavily toward prolonged detention with minimal trial progress, courts must be willing to grant bail despite the seriousness of the charge.
It is important to note, however, that the judgment carefully clarifies that observations made for the purpose of deciding the bail application should not influence the outcome of the trial and should not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The court is not making a judgment on the applicant’s guilt or innocence but rather addressing a procedural and constitutional issue regarding the duration and conditions of pretrial detention.[1]
For the broader criminal justice system, this judgment sends an important message about the need for expeditious trial procedures and warns against allowing trial delays to become a tool for indefinite detention. As India grapples with unprecedented case backlogs and overcrowded prisons, such judicial interventions become increasingly important for protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that the criminal justice system functions in a manner that respects human dignity and procedural fairness.
Citations:
High Court of Delhi, Bail Application 4074/2025, Sunil Bihari @ Shakti Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi), decided December 8, 2025, Justice Amit Mahajan.[1]
Supreme Court of India, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712.[2]
S.C. Observer, “Bail Under UAPA Can Be Granted if the Accused’s Trial has been Delayed,” August 11, 2024.[3]
Indian Constitutional Law, Philosophy, and Practice (ILI), “Union of India v K.A. Najeeb – a Ray of Hope for UAPA Undertrials,” February 18, 2021.[4]
Supreme Today AI, “Supreme Court Limits Bail Revocation Post-Chargesheet in Landmark Ruling,” December 8, 2025.[5]
IPleaders Blog, “Bail is rule, jail is an exception,” July 19, 2020; Century Law Firm, “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty,” October 2025.[6]
Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:105264; Delhi High Court, Bail Application 2936/2024, December 3, 2024.[7]
- 59508122025BA40742025_200304.pdf
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SVN22072025BA5522025_175910.pdf
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/bail-is-rule-jail-is-exception/
- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/34388/34388_2016_3_1501_10737_Judgement_05-Dec-2018.pdf
- https://supremetoday.ai/supreme-court-limits-bail-revocation-post-chargesheet-in-landmark-ruling-20251209204732c5b0b0
- https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2022/08/bail-or-jail-the-supreme-court-clarifies-the-law-and-lays-down-the-guidelines/
- https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=35246
- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/CDS21112024BA29362024_100758.pdf
- https://www.advdharmendraassociates.in/post/how-to-respond-if-bail-is-denied-legal-options-and-next-steps
- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bail-under-uapa-can-be-granted-if-the-accuseds-trial-has-been-delayed/
- https://www.delhilawacademy.com/sc-hostile-witnesses-case/
- https://lawfirmindelhi.com/what-are-the-technicalities-to-get-a-bail-under-section-302-in-india/
- https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/guest-post-union-of-india-v-k-a-najeeb-a-ray-of-hope-for-uapa-undertrials/
- https://juriscentre.com/2023/08/24/impact-of-hostile-witnesses-in-the-administration-of-indian-criminal-justice-system/
- https://www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/section-302-ipc-indian-penal-code-sod/
- https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec03333cb763facc6ce398ff83845f22/uploads/2025/10/2025100798.pdf
- https://ili.ac.in/pdf/shabnam.pdf
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-302-ipc-punishment/
- https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=35785
- https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/2791/2791_2025_16_43_58632_Judgement_22-Jan-2025.pdf
- https://jajharkhand.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Bail-Reading-Material-Web-.pdf
