Delhi HC Grants Bail to Man Held 13 Years as Undertrial in Double Murder of Two Minor Children

Justice Manoj Jain held that over thirteen years of pre-verdict incarceration, in a kidnapping and double murder case, violated the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The Delhi High Court on 2 September 2026 granted regular bail to Amit Kumar, also known as Dabboo, who has been in custody for more than thirteen years as an undertrial in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of two minor children. Justice Manoj Jain, sitting singly, held that the period of incarceration was “inordinate, unjustifiable and unconscionable” and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot override the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. The order was passed on Bail Application 2304/2026, arising from FIR No.116/2013 registered at Police Station Mandawali for offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC.

The Allegations and the Accused

The FIR was lodged on 26 February 2013 by the mother of two children, aged five and seven years. The prosecution alleges that Amit Kumar, along with three other accused persons, entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap the children with a ransom demand of Rs.30,00,000. The dead bodies of both children were recovered on 2 March 2013.

The applicant is stated to be a distant relative of the complainant's family. The children reportedly called him mama, meaning maternal uncle. Prosecution contends that he was the mastermind behind the entire episode and that the school bag of one of the deceased children was recovered from his possession. He was arrested following extensive investigation and has remained in custody since then.

At the time of his arrest, Amit Kumar was approximately 21 years of age. He is now 34. The court noted that he has no prior criminal antecedents of any nature.

The Bail Application and the Court's Dilemma

This was not the first time the applicant had sought bail from the Delhi High Court. The previous application came up in February 2022, when the court disposed of it by directing the trial court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months. The applicant was granted liberty to raise all grounds before the trial court.

More than four years passed after that order. The trial was still not over as of the date of the present hearing. The court was told that after the testimony of Inspector Sunder Singh was recorded, the prosecution expressed an inclination to recall two earlier prosecution witnesses — PW-3 Yogita and PW-6 Manoj — for identification of case property. Counsel for the applicant argued that this move indicated the prosecution was not inclined to wind up the trial.

The State and the complainant's counsel, appearing through video-conferencing, submitted that the next date before the trial court was 7 September 2026 and that prosecution would in all probability close its evidence then. They urged dismissal of the bail application, contending that the case was at the “fag end of its journey” and that there was a risk the applicant might abscond if enlarged on bail.

Justice Jain acknowledged openly that there was “a bit of dilemma in the mind of the Court” — on one hand, the long incarceration; on the other, the enormous gravity of a case involving the brutal murder of two young children.

Why the Court Rejected Reliance on X v. State of Rajasthan

The prosecution and complainant's counsel placed strong reliance on X v. State of Rajasthan : 2024 INSC 909, arguing that the High Court ought not to appreciate evidence at the bail stage in a case of this gravity. Justice Jain declined to accept this argument on the basis that the very same precedent had been considered and distinguished by the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7416/2026, decided 29 April 2026).

In Vaibhav Singh, the accused had been incarcerated for nearly nine years in a murder case. The jurisdictional High Court had refused bail relying on X v. State of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court observed that the true purport and ratio of that decision had not been comprehended, and that the High Court ought to have considered that the petitioner was languishing in jail as an undertrial prisoner.

The Supreme Court's observation in Vaibhav Singh quoted by the court read: “howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial… he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period.”

Justice Jain also referred to his court's own earlier decision in Mohd. Hakim v. State : 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623, where bail was granted to an undertrial who had been in custody for more than twelve and a half years in connection with the 2008 Delhi serial bomb blasts, in which 26 persons had lost their lives. In that matter, the court had held that the accused had demonstrated that his right to speedy trial had been defeated and would continue to be violated if he remained in custody.

The Court's Reasoning on Speedy Trial

Justice Jain held that the period of more than thirteen years in custody was, by any measure, substantial and inordinate. The court stated plainly that the seriousness of the offence “in itself, cannot eclipse and prevail over the constitutional guarantee of having a speedy trial.”

The court drew a distinction between the pace of trial proceedings and the clock of personal liberty, observing that while justice may move at its own pace for varied reasons, the clock of liberty cannot be made to stand still till eternity.

Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashwin Vaish, had submitted that pre-verdict incarceration of this duration was virtually equivalent to serving a life sentence without a conviction, in violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. He also pointed out that on three previous occasions the applicant had been enlarged on interim bail and had not misused the liberty granted to him on any of those occasions.

The court was careful to state that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, remaining cognizant of the fact that it involved a double murder. The bail was granted on the limited ground of inordinate delay and unduly long incarceration.

Outcome

Justice Manoj Jain admitted Amit Kumar to regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two local sureties of a like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Duty Judicial Magistrate First Class. The following conditions were imposed:

• Sureties to be, preferably, close relatives of the applicant.
• The applicant shall appear before the trial court regularly on all dates fixed.
• The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the investigating officer and keep it operational at all times until disposal of the case.
• The applicant shall not leave Delhi without prior permission of the trial court.
• The applicant shall report to the concerned SHO every fortnight.
• The applicant shall not attempt to contact the complainant or her family members, directly or indirectly.

Bail Application 2304/2026 was disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the trial court for information.