Delhi High Court Grants Bail to a man held since December 2022 on a murder charge, after Justice Girish Kathpalia found an FIR registered more than three days after the police were told and an investigation completed in under four hours.
New Delhi: Calling the probe “a classic case of completely botched up investigation” by the Investigating Officer, one that reflected “scant respect” for an individual’s liberty, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man in custody since December 2022 in a murder case registered at Police Station Mandawali. The allegations against the accused remain untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits and the presumption of innocence continues to apply [Sachin v. The State of NCT of Delhi].
Justice Girish Kathpalia allowed the bail application on 15 October 2026 and directed release on a personal bond of Rs 20,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court or the Duty Magistrate. Advocates Mohd. Suza Faisal and Mohd. Kashif appeared for the accused, and Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya for the State.
Three days, a missing memo and four hours
The Court was critical of the way Inspector Chetan of Police Station Janakpuri, the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation, and it noted the role of Sub-Inspector Pradeep Kumar of Police Station Mandawali. It recorded that the FIR was registered more than three days after the police were informed, that the investigation was completed in under four hours after registration, and that the Investigating Officer could not produce the arrest memo when asked about the circumstances of the arrest. There was, it found, “not even a whisper of explanation” for the delay after the daily diary entry was received.
This is a classic case of completely botched up investigation by the IO/Inspector Chetan of PS Janakpuri.
This reflects the scant respect that the local police has shown in this case concerning liberty of an individual.
A first-time identification and a ligature
Turning to the evidence, the Court noted that the last-seen witness, Nishant, did not know the accused and that no test identification parade was held, so he named Sachin for the first time in his testimony at trial. The deceased’s DNA on the ligature showed only that the ligature had been used and did not link the accused to it.
The case as the prosecution puts it
Sachin was arrested on 8 December 2022 in FIR No. 718/2022 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, which is yet to be tested at trial, is that he had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife and that, on the night of the incident, the two gave the deceased alcohol and then assaulted him with fists and kicks. The FIR was registered on 7 December 2022 at about 8:15 pm. According to the order, the hospital had informed the local police through a daily diary entry on 4 December 2022 at about 11 am, after the deceased was declared dead, so the FIR followed more than three days later.
Only 10 of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined at trial when the order was passed. A bail court does not weigh guilt. It asks whether continued custody is justified on the material before it, in light of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which is why the Court confined its observations to the bail application.
Liberty, with the trial left open
Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant.
The Court made clear that its views were limited to the bail application and that the trial court would take an independent view at the final stage on the basis of the evidence brought on record. A copy of the order was directed to be sent at once to the Jail Superintendent.
Why the order matters
Gaps in an investigation, such as an unexplained delay in registering the FIR, a missing arrest memo and a first-time identification in court, can weigh in favour of liberty at the bail stage when the accused has already spent years in custody and the trial is only partly through, the order shows. It also puts on record, in strong terms, the Court’s view of the manner in which the police handled the probe, without deciding anything on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Case Title: Sachin v. The State of NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 3281/2026]
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Mohd. Suza Faisal and Mohd. Kashif for the petitioner; Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya for the State