Granting regular bail to a man accused as a conspirator in a firing incident outside a Delhi club, the Delhi High Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception, noting that the investigation was complete, he had no antecedents, was not present at the spot, and had already spent eight months in custody.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of being a conspirator in a firing incident outside a club in the city, holding that with the investigation complete, no direct role in the shooting attributed to him, no prior criminal record, and about eight months already spent in custody, his continued incarceration was not warranted at the pre-trial stage [Mehraj Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav allowed the bail application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and directed the applicant’s release on such conditions as the trial court may impose. The allegations against the applicant are untested and remain to be established at trial; the grant of bail is not a finding on the merits, and he is presumed innocent.
The case
According to the prosecution, a firing incident took place on the intervening night of November 9-10, 2025, outside a club in the Jhilmil Industrial Area, Shahdara, where, on the complainant’s report, several persons fired multiple rounds. During the investigation, the involvement of a number of accused surfaced, some of whom are adults in custody, two of whom are absconding, and some of whom are Children in Conflict with Law. (LawChakra does not identify the juveniles involved, whose identities are protected under the law.)
The role attributed to the present applicant, as set out in the prosecution’s status report, was not that of a shooter but of a conspirator: he was alleged to have provided shelter to the accused and to have supplied a SIM card used during the offence, later recovered from one of the juveniles, with a co-accused said to have named him as the main conspirator. The State opposed bail, contending that the conspiracy had been hatched at his instance and that his release could hamper the apprehension of the two absconding accused. The complainant, though informed of the proceedings, did not appear.
The settled parameters for bail
In deciding the application, the Court set out the well-established framework governing bail in non-bailable offences. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, which lists the factors to be weighed, among them whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe the accused committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the potential punishment, and the danger of the accused absconding.
The Court also drew on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, in which the Supreme Court explained that the object of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial and is “neither punitive nor preventative,” so that the deprivation of liberty must be treated as a punishment unless necessary to ensure the accused stands trial. It reaffirmed, citing Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that the power must be exercised judiciously and compassionately, having regard to the presumption of innocence.
Significantly, the Court stressed, relying on State of Kerala v. Raneef, that the length of incarceration and the likely progress of the trial are material considerations that cannot be treated as subordinate merely because the offence alleged is grave. It quoted the Supreme Court’s pointed observation that trials often take years, and that if an accused is denied bail but ultimately acquitted, “who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?”
Why the applicant got bail
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found several factors weighing in the applicant’s favour. The investigation as against him was complete and the charge-sheet filed, reducing the risk of tampering; he had no criminal antecedents; and while the role assigned to him was that of a conspirator, that conspiracy “will have to be established on the basis of the evidence which the prosecution shall adduce during the course of trial.” Crucially, the Court noted that the applicant had no direct involvement in the alleged firing and that his presence at the spot was “admittedly absent.”
The Court further observed that the firing had not resulted in injury to anyone, and that the applicant had already undergone about eight months of custody. In those circumstances, it held, continued detention pending trial was not justified, and directed his release on bail subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
Why the order matters
The order is a clean application of settled bail jurisprudence, and a useful illustration of how courts distinguish between the gravity of an allegation and the necessity of pre-trial detention. Even in a case involving firearms and an alleged criminal conspiracy, the Court’s focus was on the established parameters: the completeness of the investigation, the absence of antecedents, the nature of the specific role attributed to the accused, and, importantly, the period already spent in custody set against the likely duration of the trial. The point that a conspiracy charge must still be proved by evidence at trial, and cannot by itself justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration, reflects the presumption of innocence at the heart of bail law.
The invocation of Raneef, and its reminder that no court can restore the years an ultimately-acquitted accused spends in jail, underscores the constitutional concern with personal liberty that animates the “bail is the rule” principle. At the same time, the grant of bail decides nothing about guilt: the prosecution’s case that the applicant was the conspiracy’s prime mover remains to be tested, the trial will proceed, and the conditions imposed are meant to secure his presence and cooperation. Nothing has been established on the merits, and the allegations remain to be proved.
Case Title: Mehraj Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi [Bail Appln. 3009/2026]
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 14, 2026