Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohd. Shahnawaj vs State, Nct Of Delhi on 27 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1708/2026
MOHD. SHAHNAWAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Keshav Sethi and Mr. Shobhit
Dimri, Advocates.
versus
STATE, NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.
Insp. Pankaj Gulliya.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 27.07.2026
1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks regular bail in
connection with FIR No.262/2019 dated 22.07.2019 for the offence
punishable under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC]
registered at police station Nabi Karim, Delhi.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is
submitted that the applicant has already undergone incarceration for
approximately seven years. Out of a total of 19 witnesses cited by the
prosecution, only 8 have been examined thus far. It is further submitted that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and that he undertakes to
cooperate with the trial and abide by any terms and conditions that this
Court may deem fit to impose.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
3. It is stated that co-accused Mohd. Rizwan @ Raju has already
been enlarged on regular bail vide order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the
Trial Court. Learned senior counsel contends that the dispute had essentially
arisen between co-accused Rizwan and Danish, and that the applicant had
merely attempted to intervene and pacify the situation, in the course of
which the alleged injuries appear to have been caused in the heat of the
moment. It is accordingly contended that the veracity of the allegations
levelled against the present applicant is a matter to be examined during the
course of trial, and that his guilt or innocence would ultimately depend upon
the final outcome thereof.
4. The submissions are opposed by Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP for
the State. The Investigating Officer is also present, and he submits that the
family of the deceased has been informed and the injured is appearing
through Video Conferencing.
5. Mr. Haider, learned counsel appearing for the State, vehemently
opposes the grant of regular bail to the applicant. It is submitted that one of
the material witnesses, namely Farman, is yet to be examined, and that the
CCTV footage placed on record prima facie depicts the applicant pulling out
a knife and inflicting stab injuries upon the said Farman.
6. It is contended that the said footage constitutes clinching and
unimpeachable evidence directly implicating the applicant in the
commission of the offence, and that the same, coupled with the ocular and
medical evidence already on record, establishes a strong prima facie case
against him. It is further submitted that having regard to the gravity of the
allegations and the nature of evidence available on record, this is not a fit
case for exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant, and that enlarging
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
him on bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the trial, more
particularly since the material witness is yet to depose before the Trial
Court.
7. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel appearing
for the parties and have perused the record.
8. As per the Nominal Roll, as on 18.07.2026, the applicant has suffered
six (06) years eleven (11) months twenty-six (26) days of incarceration. His
jail conduct for the last one year is found to be satisfactory who is working
as Shayak. There is no criminal case pending against him except the present
one. Co-accused Mohd. Rizwan has already been enlarged on bail on
07.06.2023.
9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and on the ground of long
incarceration, the applicant is entitled to regular bail.
10. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,1 held that
statutory restrictions on the grant of bail, do not denude constitutional courts
of their power to grant bail where continued incarceration results in a
violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty and speedy trial
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relevant paragraph no 15 is
reproduced as under:-
“15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective
ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a
speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing
Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials
cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to
suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established
before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life
where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in
case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are1
(2021) 3 SCC 713This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending
trial or not. 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.”
[Emphasis supplied]
11. Reliance is also well placed on the judgment of this court in Ajay v.
State NCT of Delhi2. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“14. Apart from the merits of the case, it cannot be overlooked that the
petitioner is in custody for approximately 03 years and 05 months and
there is no possibility of the trial being concluded any time soon, inasmuch
as out of 32 witnesses cited by the prosecution, about 20 witnesses have
been examined till date. At this stage, there is also a presumption of
innocence in favour of the petitioner and in the given circumstance the
petitioner cannot be kept in custody to await the outcome of trial, the
conclusion of which is likely to take a long time”.
12. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Court has also looked into the
nature of the allegations and the manner in which the incident has occurred,
the weapon used, and the evidence, as of now, available against the
applicant.
13. It is noted that the incident in question occurred on 21.07.2019. On
that date, co-accused Mohd. Rizwan was climbing the staircase leading to
his house, while one Danish was coming down the same staircase from the
opposite direction. In the course of this movement, the two accidentally
collided with each other, which led to a quarrel breaking out between them.
During the altercation, Mohd. Rizwan is stated to have shouted out to
another friend standing outside the house, calling upon him with the words
“maaro saalon ko” (beat them up).
14. The Supreme Court in Khuman Singh v. State of M.P3. while
2
2024 SCC OnLine Del 3730.
3
(2020) 18 SCC 763.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
adjudicating sudden quarrel over trivial issue that led to the injury observed
that:-
“8. The question falling for consideration is whether the appellant-
accused intentionally caused the death of deceased Veer Singh? The entire
incident occurred when the appellant had taken his buffaloes for grazing
in the field of t he deceased for which the deceased objected and drove all
the buffaloes out of his field. It is in these circumstances, the appellant
became furious and abused the deceased and caused injuries on his head
in a sudden fight with axe. There was no premeditation for the
occurrence and because of the grazing of the cattle, in a sudden fight,
the occurrence had taken place.
9. The question to be considered is whether the act of the appellant-
accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC? Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused : (a) without
premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight
must have been with the person killed. In the present case, the appellant-
accused and the deceased exchanged wordy abuses on which, the
appellant gave the deceased blows on his head causing six head injuries.
Where the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no
premeditation on the part of the accused, it falls under Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC.
10. As discussed earlier, the entire incident was in a sudden fight in which
the appellant-accused caused head injuries on the deceased with an axe.
There was no prior deliberation or determination to fight. The sudden
quarrel arose between the parties due to trivial issue of grazing the
buffaloes of the appellant for which, the deceased raised objection. In a
sudden fight, the appellant had inflicted blows on the head of the deceased
with an axe which caused six head injuries. Though the weapon used by
the appellant was axe and the injuries were inflicted on the vital part of
the body viz. head, knowledge is attributable to the appellant- accused that
the injuries are likely to cause death. Considering the fact that the
occurrence was in a sudden fight, in our view, the occurrence would fall
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction of the appellant-
accused under Section 302 IPC is therefore to be modified as conviction
under Section 304 Part II IPC.”
[Emphasis Suplied]
15. It is, at this stage, the petitioner seems to have pulled out a knife and
caused injuries to Yasin. Mr. Yasin seems to have been present at the time
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
of the incident. There does not seem to be any premeditated intention to
cause injuries to Yasin. It appears that during this fight, Farman has also
sustained some injuries and, therefore, offence under Sections 302 as well as
Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC was registered.
16. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the
applicant be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by the trial court.
17. Application stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 27, 2026/p/NK
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 22:21:00
