Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja granted regular bail to an individual who had been in judicial custody for more than five years in connection with a murder case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail was granted after the Court noted the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner, the weakness in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, and the lack of credible witness support, concluding that further detention would infringe upon the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The case originates from an FIR registered on 29.09.2019 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Karawal Nagar. According to the prosecution, the victim, a young woman aged approximately 25, had gone missing on 26.09.2019 after leaving home to meet her tuition teacher, the petitioner. Three days later, her decomposed body was recovered from Ganda Nala near Sardar Patel School, Karawal Nagar.

Also Read: Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings With Strict Directives | Orders Afforestation, Environmental Fee On DDA For Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Warns Against Recurrence

The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was "Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem drowning." The victim was identified by her brother and uncle. The victim’s mother, Rabia Begum, and her brother, Danish, confirmed that she left home to visit the petitioner on the day she went missing.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and the deceased were in a romantic relationship. The deceased was allegedly pressuring the petitioner to marry her, even though he was already married. It was claimed that in order to eliminate the deceased, the petitioner inflicted a danda blow on her head, assuming her dead, stuffed her body into a jute sack, and, with the help of his co-accused brother-in-law, Rajiq @ Sameer, disposed of the body.

According to the police, Rajiq @ Sameer borrowed an ECO van from his brother Md. Shahid Rizwi under the pretext of taking his sister to the hospital. This van was allegedly used to transport and dump the body. Anees Ahmed, a witness, claimed to have seen the petitioner and co-accused placing a jute sack into the vehicle.

The prosecution further relied on call detail records (CDRs) that allegedly indicated constant communication between the petitioner, the deceased, and the co-accused during the relevant period. Based on information from the accused, the police recovered belongings of the deceased, such as a stole and sandals, and a wooden log allegedly used in the offence, from areas near Jafrabad Metro Station and the Nala.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that he has been in custody since 07.10.2019, and that the case against him is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, with no direct link or material recovery tying him to the crime. There was no CCTV footage, and call records did not include location data. It was submitted that there was a delay of 90 days in recording the statement of key witness Anees Ahmed under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and an 84-day delay in sending forensic materials for analysis. Furthermore, inconsistencies were cited in the recovery timeline of the alleged weapon, and the failure to seize or examine the petitioner’s phone was also raised.

The petitioner stated that both key witnesses, PW-2 Md. Shahid Rizwi and PW-10 Anees Ahmed, had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. The co-accused had already been granted bail, and with only 12 out of 32 witnesses examined, the trial was expected to extend further. The petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents, maintained good conduct in jail, and posed no flight risk. He had also previously been granted interim bail, which he had not misused.

The State opposed the bail application, citing CDRs, recovered articles, and FSL findings. The prosecution stated that the recovered items had been identified by the deceased’s mother in a Test Identification Parade. FSL reports allegedly linked fibers from the jute sack to soil samples taken from the third floor of the petitioner’s residence, suggesting a connection between the site and the crime.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the case rested on circumstantial evidence. "In case of circumstantial evidence, the Court needs to see whether the circumstances presented by the prosecution are supported by credible and cogent evidence and the entire chain of events is so complete that it eliminates any reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused."

The Court observed that two key prosecution witnesses had already turned hostile. "Md. Shahid Rizwi and Anees Ahmed have already been examined by Court as PW-2 and PW-10 respectively. Admittedly, they have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile." The Court acknowledged that "a belated recovery of the belongings of the deceased and the danda, delay in sending crucial evidence to FSL etc. weakens the case of prosecution."

Referring to the backlog of evidence and pending trial, the Court recorded that only 12 of the 32 witnesses had been examined and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. It further stated: "The Nominal Roll of the petitioner does not indicate that petitioner has any criminal antecedents."

Justice Dudeja cited the Supreme Court judgment in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 INSC 595]: "The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment... It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that ‘bail is rule and jail is exception.’"

Taking these into account, the Court observed: "Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. Considering long incarceration, denying bail to the petitioner would deprive him of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Court took note of the petitioner's prior interim bail, observing: "There is no allegation that he had in any manner misused the grant of interim bail. The petitioner is, therefore, not a flight risk." With most material witnesses already examined, the Court recorded that "there is remote possibility of him tampering with the evidence."

Justice Ravinder Dudeja concluded the matter by directing that the petitioner be released on bail, stating: "Hence, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the bail application is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court..."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Slams University Over Withheld Fellowship | No Vice Chancellor Salary Until Student Paid, Says Court

The Court further directed: "Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court, as and when directed. Petitioner shall share his mobile number with Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times. Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, come in contact with witnesses of this case, in any manner. In case of change of residential address, petitioner shall immediately bring the same to the notice of the trial Court."

It was clarified that the judgment was limited to the determination of the bail application: "It is made clear that nothing stated in this judgment shall tantamount to an opinion on the merits of the case and observations made are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail application."

The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mutiur Rehman, Mr. Nadeem Khan, Ms. Shaheen, Ms. Mehwish Khanam, Ms. Arshi, Ms. Nazish Khanam, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Insp. Rizwan, PS-Karawal Nagar and ACP Sanjeev Kumar.

Case Title: Naushad Ali vs. State NCT of Delhi

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4506

Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 4722/2024

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

[Read/Download order]