Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a bail plea by an accused detained for over ten years in connection with the alleged custodial killing of two undertrial prisoners in 2015. The Court clarified that release under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code is not automatic, even for offences that do not carry the death penalty. The provision allows bail to undertrial prisoners who have spent half the maximum prescribed sentence in custody, but its application depends on the gravity of the charge. Citing delays partly due to absconding co-accused and pandemic disruptions, the Court directed the trial to conclude within eighteen months.

The case concerns the bail application of an accused charged in connection with the custodial killing of two undertrial prisoners inside a jail van in 2015. The incident led to the registration of an FIR under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, among other provisions, and the applicant was taken into custody. He has remained in judicial custody for over ten years while the trial has been pending.

Also Read: Supreme Court Jails Tenant for Defying Order to Vacate Premises, Fines Elderly Co-Tenant ₹5 Lakh

The applicant sought bail under Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that he had already spent more than one-half of the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offences alleged against him and therefore was entitled to be released. He further pointed to delays in the progress of the trial and argued that continued detention was unwarranted.

The State opposed the application, arguing that the applicant was facing trial for a grave offence punishable with death or life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore the benefit of Section 436A was not applicable. The State further submitted that the delays in the trial were attributable to the absconding of certain co-accused and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than any lapse on the part of the prosecution.

The Court noted the petitioner’s reliance on Article 21 and Section 436-A Cr.P.C., which limits undertrial custody to half the maximum sentence prescribed. However, Justice Sanjeev Narula recorded: “A plain reading of the provision makes it evident that the benefit under Section 436-A is not available to undertrial prisoners who are facing trial for offences punishable with death. This limitation is categorical and operates as an exception to the general rule.”

The judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, noting that “Section 436-A Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to cases where the accused is facing trial for offences punishable with death.” The Court reiterated that the petitioner, being charged under Section 302 IPC, falls squarely within this exclusion.

On the argument that the petitioner’s role was distinguishable from co-accused, the Court stated: “At the stage of bail, it is not appropriate to conduct a mini-trial or engage in a comparative analysis of the individual roles ascribed to the accused persons. With several Prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, any determination on the Applicant’s specific role or culpability vis-à-vis the co-accused would risk prejudicing the case of either side.”

Addressing delays in the trial, the Court reviewed a status report from the Trial Court. It recorded: “The delay is not attributable solely to prosecutorial inertia, but has stemmed from a confluence of factors.” These included the COVID-19 pandemic and abscondence of co-accused, which necessitated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court estimated that with 40 witnesses still to be examined, approximately 18 months would be required for completion of trial.

The Court also noted: “While prolonged incarceration engages Article 21, cases involving hardened offenders and serious crimes may warrant continued custody despite delay.” Reference was made to Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that bail could be denied in cases of serious crime notwithstanding prolonged custody.

Regarding the reliance on Section 57 IPC and MHA guidelines, the Court recorded: “Section 57 is a deeming provision intended for the purpose of calculating fractions of punishment, not for converting life imprisonment into a fixed term of 20 years.” The Court therefore rejected the petitioner’s claim that ten years constituted ‘half-life’ of a sentence.

Justice Narula held: “Accordingly, while the Applicant’s prolonged custody is a factor that warrants oversight by this Court, the appropriate remedy is to press for a time-bound trial, rather than enlarge him on bail at this stage.”

The Court recorded that allegations involved “double custodial homicide under Section 302 IPC, an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, placing it in the class of gravest crimes.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Cordial Exchanges Not Proof of Matrimonial Reconciliation, Affirms Divorce on Ground of Desertion

“Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed, along with all pending applications. The Trial Court is therefore requested to monitor the matter closely, endeavouring to examine the remaining witnesses within 18 months and reporting progress at quarterly intervals to the Principal District and Sessions Judge.”

“Any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Shokeen, Mr. Prayag D. Sehrawat, Mr. Prateek, and Mr. Deepesh, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with Inspector Hitender Kumar, PS: Mangol Puri.

Case Title: Sunil Maan v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Bail Appln. 1795/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula