Six Years in Custody, IO Absent 20 Times: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Murder Accused in Sonia Vihar Case
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav granted bail to two accused in a 2020 murder case, citing six years of incarceration, glacial trial progress, and the Investigating Officer's persistent non-appearance before the Trial Court.
The High Court of Delhi on 13 August 2026 granted regular bail to two accused — Vikas and Aarush @ Bunty — who had spent approximately six years in custody in connection with FIR No. 284/2020 registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar. The case involves charges under Sections 302/34 and 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, sitting singly, found that the trial had crawled through only 10 of 24 witnesses in over six years, with the Investigating Officer appearing before the Trial Court just once since the FIR was registered and remaining absent on more than 20 occasions. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
The Murder at Sonia Vihar and the Accusations Against the Applicants
The incident in question occurred on 15 August 2020 at around 10:15 PM near Angel Fast Food in Sonia Vihar. PW-1, Vikas Bhati @ Vickey, the brother of the deceased Dinesh Bhati and an eyewitness, testified that he heard cries for help and rushed to the spot. He saw accused Vikas and Aarush @ Bunty assaulting his brother. Another accused, Ajay @ Satveer, struck the deceased on the head with a brick. A separate accused, Akash, then drew a country-made pistol (desi katta) tucked in his waistband and fired multiple times, reloading two to three times. Accused Arun, Akash's brother, was also present.
The prosecution's case against Vikas rested partly on the recovery of the desi katta at his instance and that of co-accused Ajay @ Satveer, with a ballistic report linking that weapon to the gunshot injuries. Against Aarush @ Bunty, the prosecution alleged recovery of a surgical blade allegedly used in the commission of the offence and his alleged participation in a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.
Five accused persons were named. Of these, Arun had already been enlarged on regular bail by the High Court. The remaining four, including the two applicants, remained in custody.
The Legal Questions Before the Court
Two issues shaped the court's analysis. The first was whether the changed circumstances since the rejection of Vikas's earlier bail application warranted a fresh look. The earlier application had been dismissed on merits by this Court on 25 April 2024. The second was whether the continued incarceration of both applicants, in a trial proceeding at what the court described as a very slow pace, amounted to a violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Counsel for the applicants argued that the pendency of other criminal cases in which the applicants were already on bail should not by itself defeat their right to a speedy trial in the present matter. They also pressed the parity argument: co-accused Arun had been granted bail, and the applicants were entitled to similar treatment.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shubhi Gupta, opposed bail. The APP argued that the role attributed to Arun was limited to his presence at the scene without any overt act, making parity unavailable to the applicants. She submitted that the allegations against the present applicants were serious and disentitled them to bail.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Kaurav approached the successive bail application through the framework settled in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, which requires the court to consider the reasons for the earlier dismissal and examine whether subsequent circumstances justify a different view.
The court found a material change. At the time of the earlier rejection on 25 April 2024, seven prosecution witnesses had been examined. By August 2026 — a period of approximately two years and four months — only ten witnesses had been examined, and the examination-in-chief of three more had been deferred. Out of a total of 24 witnesses, less than half had been examined, with no likelihood of an early conclusion. This, the court held, constituted a supervening circumstance warranting reconsideration.
On the substantive question of bail, the court drew on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, which emphasises that prolonged incarceration pending trial must be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. It then applied the ratio of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, where the Supreme Court held that constitutional courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge an accused on bail once it becomes evident that a timely conclusion of the trial is not possible and the accused has undergone substantial incarceration — even where statutory restrictions on bail apply.
The court also cited Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, for the principle that the presumption of innocence endures and bail is the rule; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, for the considerations guiding bail discretion; and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, for the proposition that pre-conviction incarceration must not be punitive in character.
The court adopted the observation of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4623, that a court must act as a “doctor” rather than a “coroner” — protecting the right to a speedy trial before the violation becomes irreversible, rather than acknowledging it after the constitutional injury is done.
On the question of the applicants' role, the court noted that on a prima facie reading of PW-1's testimony, the actual gunshot injury was caused by accused Akash. No overt act was specifically attributed to Vikas or Aarush @ Bunty in that testimony. The cause of death was primarily the gunshot wound. This finding informed, though did not alone determine, the bail decision.
The IO's Conduct: A Separate Concern
The court drew specific attention to what it called “the rather unfortunate state of affairs reflected from the judicial record.” An order dated 7 November 2025 passed by the Trial Court recorded that the IO remained non-cooperative and that delays were primarily attributable to the investigating agency. The IO, Inspector Hira Lal, had appeared before the Trial Court on only one occasion since the FIR was registered in 2020. He had been summoned more than 20 times. The Trial Court had issued a bailable warrant against him for Rs. 5,000 with a surety of a like amount.
The Trial Court order, as extracted by the High Court, noted that witnesses PW-4 and PW-8 were present for examination-in-chief but had to be discharged unexamined because the IO's assistance was required for the case properties and he had not appeared. The Trial Court recorded that the IO appeared to be avoiding appearance citing the distance to his new posting at PS Nihal Vihar, adding that distance was no excuse.
Justice Kaurav observed that the criminal justice system cannot allow an accused to remain in custody for years while the trial is impeded by the repeated non-appearance of the IO. The court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for “sensitising” IOs to ensure timely cooperation in the expeditious conclusion of pending matters, especially where accused persons have remained incarcerated for considerable periods.
Outcome
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed both bail applications. Vikas (Bail Appln. 4963/2025) and Aarush @ Bunty (Bail Appln. 783/2026) are directed to be released on regular bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.
The court clarified that nothing in the order amounts to an expression on the merits of the case. The observations are confined solely to the bail applications. The Trial Court is directed to adjudicate the matter independently and in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced before it.
A copy of the order is to be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.