Pending criminal cases without conviction cannot alone justify denial of bail, the Delhi High Court has ruled while granting regular bail to an undertrial who has spent about 16 months in custody.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that the previous involvement of an accused in cases that have not ended in conviction cannot, by itself, be a ground to refuse bail when the other circumstances favour him, and has granted regular bail to a man held since June 2025 in an alleged knife assault case [Aniket v. State NCT of Delhi].
Justice Sachin Datta allowed the bail application in an oral order dated October 7, 2026. The allegations against the accused are untested, the trial is pending, the presumption of innocence applies, and nothing in this report expresses a view on the merits.
How the case reached the High Court
The petition was filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of FIR No. 0324/2025 registered at P.S. Nand Nagri under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
According to the complainant, on June 3, 2025 at around 8:45 PM he went to a wine shop at E-Block, Nand Nagri, where four persons confronted and assaulted him. The specific allegation against the applicant is that he, along with another participant, caught hold of the complainant while two others, named as Salman and Fardeen, assaulted him, and that Salman took out a knife and inflicted injuries. The applicant has been in judicial custody since June 4, 2025.
Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. Charges were framed on April 9, 2026 under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on October 9, 2026.
The applicant’s role and the stage of the trial
Counsel for the applicant argued that he did not himself inflict any injury, that the knife was recovered at the instance of co-accused Salman and not at his, and that he had spent roughly 16 months in custody with the investigation over and the charge-sheet filed. The Court found these contentions merited.
The trial is, therefore, likely to take some time to conclude, and no further investigative purpose is to be served by keeping the applicant in custody.
The Court noted that, on the prosecution’s own case, the applicant is alleged to have caught hold of the complainant while the knife assault is attributed to a co-accused, and that his role is distinct from that of the co-accused. It also observed that the matter had not substantially progressed after charges were framed: the complainant, a material witness, had not appeared on the date fixed for his evidence, and the trial court had to issue bailable warrants to secure his presence.
Pending cases without conviction
On the applicant’s earlier involvement in other cases, Justice Datta held:
The previous involvement of the petitioner in some cases which have not resulted in conviction, cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny bail when the other circumstances of the case otherwise favour the applicant.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. (2020) 11 SCC 648, which held that the gravity of the offence and the pendency of several criminal cases cannot by themselves be the basis for refusing bail. It also referred to Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate (2026) 7 SCC 330, which stress that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence and that pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to “degenerate into punishment without adjudication”.
The Court’s conclusion and the bail conditions
Taking into account the custody since June 4, 2025, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, framing of charges, the individual role attributed to the applicant, recovery of the weapon at the instance of the co-accused and the present stage of the trial, the Court concluded:
In the present case, the continued incarceration of the applicant, when the trial is yet to substantially progress, would not serve any further purpose.
Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant must attend every hearing unless exempted, may not leave the NCT of Delhi or travel abroad without the trial court’s permission, must give his permanent and residential addresses and report any change, keep a working mobile number with location services enabled shared with the Investigating Officer, report to the SHO on the first Monday of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, and must not contact the complainant or any prosecution witness or tamper with evidence.
Why the order matters
Trial courts routinely weigh a list of other pending FIRs against an applicant. This order restates that such pendency, without a conviction, is a circumstance to be weighed with the rest of the record and is not a stand-alone reason to refuse liberty.
It also shows the Article 21 speedy-trial line at work in an ordinary, non-special-statute case: a concluded investigation, framed charges and a trial that has barely begun left no investigative purpose in keeping the applicant behind bars.
Case Title: Aniket v. State NCT of Delhi [BAIL APPLN. 3187/2026]
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Chetan and Ms. Deepika, Advocates, for the petitioner; Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP, for the State