Delhi HC Grants Bail After 12 Years in Custody, Citing Police Witnesses' Repeated Absences as Root of Trial Delay

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that even grave charges cannot bar bail once Article 21's speedy trial guarantee is demonstrably infringed by prolonged, police-caused delay.

The Delhi High Court on 18 August 2026 granted regular bail to Shivam Gupta, an undertrial who had been in continuous judicial custody since 5 January 2014 — a period exceeding twelve years — in connection with a 2013 dacoity and murder case. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, sitting singly, found that only 15 of 32 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined in over a decade, and that the delay was substantially caused by the repeated non-appearance of police witnesses rather than any conduct of the accused. The court directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to ensure that investigating officers and police witnesses appear on dates fixed by the trial court, and remitted the question of specific bail conditions to that court.

The FIR and Prosecution Allegations

FIR No. 568/2013 was registered at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, East Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 396, 412 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case is that on 7 November 2013, Shivam Gupta and three to four associates entered House No. 31-A, Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III by inducing the complainant's 14-year-old son to open the gate on the pretext of a courier delivery.

Once inside, the intruders, armed with a knife and a pistol, dragged the complainant's wife, Ms. Madhubala Gupta, to the rear bedroom while her two minor children were confined and threatened at knife-point in an adjacent room. The house was ransacked of gold and silver ornaments and cash. The assailants locked the gate from outside when they fled. The children, on venturing out, found their mother unresponsive; she was declared brought dead at the hospital. The post-mortem report attributed death to asphyxia consequent upon manual strangulation and smothering, with ante-mortem injuries indicative of a violent struggle.

At the time of his arrest, silver jewellery weighing over two kilograms, the deceased's bank passbook, and cheque books belonging to the complainant were stated to have been recovered from Gupta's possession. The child witness, examined as PW-3, is stated to have identified the applicant both during the Test Identification Parade and subsequently through video conferencing.

Three Earlier Bail Refusals and the Present Application

Gupta's applications for regular bail before the trial court were dismissed on three previous occasions: 11 August 2020, 7 February 2022, and 29 October 2025. Each refusal rested principally on the gravity of the offence, the applicant's antecedents — including his implication in FIR No. 116/2013 at Police Station Mandawali for the abduction and murder of two minor children — and adverse reports as to his conduct in judicial custody.

The present application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court. Counsel for Gupta argued that, independent of the question of innocence, the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial. As on 30 March 2026, Gupta had undergone 12 years, 2 months and 25 days in custody. The delay, counsel submitted, was substantially attributable to the repeated non-appearance of police witnesses.

The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Shoaib Haider, opposed the application. He contended that the offences were heinous, having resulted in the murder of a woman before her minor children, and that Gupta was additionally involved in FIR No. 404/2018 under Sections 324, 506, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Anand Vihar, and had a demonstrated propensity to abscond.

Gravity of Charge Alone Cannot Bar Bail Where Article 21 Is Infringed

Justice Kaurav began the legal analysis by acknowledging that the allegations were grave and that the antecedents could not be brushed aside. He then set out the governing principle: the gravity of an offence has never been treated as the sole or predominant touchstone for refusal of bail once it is shown that the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution stands infringed.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sahil Manoj Machare v. State of Maharashtra (2026 SCC OnLine SC 810), where bail was granted to an undertrial charged under Section 302 IPC who had spent nearly four years in custody without a single witness being examined. The Supreme Court had observed: “howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately.”

Justice Kaurav then referred to Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where the Supreme Court held that statutory restrictions on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail where continued incarceration would offend the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court had stated in that case 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.”

The court in Najeeb had also explained how statutory rigour and constitutional liberty are to be harmonised: rigorous legislative provisions against bail must yield where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Justice Kaurav noted that Sections 396 and 412 IPC carry no statutory bail restrictions of the kind present in Najeeb. If constitutional liberty prevails over an express legislative restriction on bail in such cases, the same principle must, a fortiori, inform an otherwise unfettered judicial discretion under Section 483 BNSS.

The court also referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51, where the Supreme Court cautioned against the reflexive equation of a serious accusation with a denial of bail, observing that jails are flooded with undertrial prisoners and that arrest, being a draconian measure, must be used sparingly.

Twelve Years in Custody, Half the Witnesses Still Unexamined

Turning to the facts, the court noted that Section 396 IPC is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. Gupta had already spent in excess of twelve years in custody — a period that already exceeds the ten-year tier of the prescribed punishment short of death or life imprisonment, and constitutes a substantial fraction of even the maximum non-capital sentence possible upon conviction.

The pace of the trial compounded the concern. Only 15 of 32 cited witnesses had been examined in over twelve years. The court had called upon the trial court to explain the specific hurdles impeding progress. The trial court's response was instructive: Inspector CP Meena had sought exemption from personal appearance on four occasions (24 May 2024, 25 September 2024, 6 September 2025, and 4 April 2026), while Inspector Vijay Shrotriya, the original Investigating Officer, had failed to appear on five occasions (24 May 2024, 18 July 2024, 29 November 2024, 12 February 2025, and 6 July 2025).

The evidence of Inspector CP Meena had since been concluded. The trial court assured the High Court that, subject to the appearance of remaining witnesses, the trial might possibly be concluded within six months. Justice Kaurav recorded that similar assurances of expedition had accompanied each of the three previous bail applications since 2020, without any material change in the pace of the trial thereafter. The delay, on the material before the court, was substantially attributable to police witnesses rather than to any act or omission by Gupta.

Parity With Co-Accused a Relevant, Supporting Consideration

The court also took into account that the present case involved eight accused persons in all — four adults and four children in conflict with law. Of the four adult accused, three — Ajai Rai, Mahesh Gupta @ Sunny, and Nar Singh Kumar Verma — had already been enlarged on regular bail, and the allegations against them were stated to be similar in nature to those levelled against Gupta.

Justice Kaurav was careful to note that parity with co-accused cannot by itself be a determinative ground for bail, particularly where the individual roles of co-accused are shown to differ. In the present case, however, parity operated alongside the independent and substantial ground of prolonged incarceration, making it a relevant circumstance to be weighed.

Direction to Commissioner of Police

Given the specific pattern of police witness absences documented before the court, Justice Kaurav directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to ensure that investigating officers and police witnesses appear on dates specifically fixed by the concerned court. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Commissioner of Police for necessary action.

Order

The High Court held that continued incarceration of Shivam Gupta was not warranted. It directed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail, with conditions to be imposed by the concerned trial court. The bail application was disposed of.