Mr. Tushar Rohmetra and Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Advocates v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 Page 1 of 5 $~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 (Disposed of case) VIKKI MAAN @ MANU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tushar Rohmetra and Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Advocates versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with Inspector Shailender Kumar and SI Mohit, P.S. Alipur. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R% 13.02.20261.This matter has been listed today on an office note, in view of a communication dated 03.02.2026 from the Sessions Court, seeking extension of time for recording evidence of three witnesses. Time of six months was granted for this purpose by order dated 24.04.2025, which was extended for three months by order dated 03.11.2025. 2.The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 440/2019 dated 12.11.2019 registered at Police Station Alipur, District North, Delhi. 3.The captioned bail application was disposed of on 24.04.2025. While this Court did not find merit in the application, it also acknowledged the potential violation of the petitioner’s rights under 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 16/02/2026 at 14:26:10 BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 Page 2 of 5 Article 21 of the Constitution, by delay in the trial. The observations of the Court in the said order were as follows: “5. The Court has deliberated on the contentions advanced by the counsel. On 3rd March, 2025, noting the prolonged incarceration, this Court directed the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge, to submit a status report detailing the progress of trial and reasons for the delay. As per the report received, the charge sheet was filed on 10thFebruary, 2020. Thereafter, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective proceeding could take place from 20th May, 2020 to 10thSeptember, 2021. On 12th November, 2021, charges were framed against the Applicant and the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. Thereafter, on 10th May, 2022, PW-1 (Umed Singh) was examined and discharged. On 18th August, 2022, PW-2 (Sunderlal) was examined and discharged. The 3rd prosecution witness, PW Vikas was partially examined on 26th April, 2023 and his further cross examination was deferred due to paucity of time. As per the report received, the Court of ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts has been vacant from 13th November, 2024 and as a result, no effective proceedings have taken placed for nearly 5 months. 6. A perusal of the report makes it evident that while there has been some delay on the part of the prosecution, a substantial portion of the delay is attributable to the judicial vacancy in the Trial Court. This administrative impediment, though outside the control of prosecution, nonetheless results in the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant, an undertrial, without effective progress in the proceedings. Such delay, regardless of the cause, weighs upon the constitutional mandate of expeditious trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.7. At the same time, the gravity of the allegations cannot be overlooked. The offence in question involves the alleged manual strangulation of a woman in a hotel room, where the Applicant was last seen with the deceased. The post-mortem report rules out any possibility of accident or self-harm, confirming the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem manual strangulation. The prosecution case is built on circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of key witnesses, such as the hotel manager, hotel staff present during the relevant period, and the “last seen” witness, will be crucial. In this backdrop, the State’s apprehension regarding potential witness intimidation cannot be brushed aside, especially as these witnesses are yet to testify. 8. In view of the above, while this Court does not find it appropriate to enlarge the Applicant on bail at this stage, it deems it necessary to 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 16/02/2026 at 14:26:10 BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 Page 3 of 5 ensure that the trial proceeds with due expedition. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: a. The Trial Court shall make all endeavours to examine the material prosecution witnesses, namely: (1) Deepak; (2) Bhushan Kumar and (3) Ravi Kumar, within a period 6 months. b. In case, the Court of ASJ-02, North District, Rohini Courts still remains vacant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts is requested to allocate the matter to another Court of competent jurisdiction so as to avoid further delay in the conduct of the trial.”14.The learned Sessions Court first sought an extension of time for three months, which was granted by order dated 03.11.2025 with the following observations: “3. Counsel for the Applicant states that delay in trial effects his right to seek bail. 4. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the Trial Court is requested to record the statement of the material witnesses within the time indicated in the request. 5. The objection raised by the Applicant is misplaced as the Court has already declined the bail application on merits. In case the Applicant files any fresh bail application before the Trial Court, the same shall be considered on its own merits irrespective of whether the material prosecution witnesses have been examined or not, provided of course that the Applicant should demonstrate a material change in circumstances warranting re-consideration.” 5.A further request for extension has now been received, seeking three more months for recording the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses. In the communication of the learned Sessions Judge, the progress of the proceedings after the aforesaid order dated 03.11.2025 have been elaborately detailed. 6.The narration of events depicts that the principal cause of delay was non-availability of Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”] report and non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. The FSL report was filed on 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 16/02/2026 at 14:26:10 BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 Page 4 of 5 21.01.2026; however, it was subsequently recorded that it contains more than 5,000 video files, for which the assistance of the Investigating Officer [“IO”] would be required to identify the files relied upon by the prosecution. Despite service of court notice, the IO did not appear on 31.01.2026. The Regular Additional Public Prosecutor was also on leave, and in these circumstances, the witnesses were discharged unexamined. 7.I am informed that the matter is still at the stage of identification of the relevant video files referred to in the FSL report. The matter was listed before the Sessions Court even today. Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that PW Deepak was present but was discharged unexamined as the IO sought time for identification of the relevant files. The proceedings are now fixed before the Sessions Court on 20.02.2026. 8.The communication received from the learned Sessions Judge shows that the proceedings have been adjourned repeatedly due to the absence of prosecution witnesses, the non-availability of the Additional Public Prosecutor, the absence of the IO, and other reasons not attributable to the accused or the Court. Having regard to the aforesaid narration of events, the SHO, P.S. Alipur, is present in Court and assures the Court that the case will be prosecuted with due diligence, so that the evidence of the three public witnesses is recorded within a period of six weeks from today, subject to the convenience of the learned Sessions Court. 9.The office note is discharged, with the direction that the time for recording the statements of the three witnesses, namely Deepak, Bhushan 1 Emphasis supplied. 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 16/02/2026 at 14:26:10 BAIL APPLN. 453/2025 Page 5 of 5 Kumar, and Ravi Kumar, is extended by a period of six weeks. If the evidence of the said three witnesses is not recorded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner may apply before the learned Sessions Court for grant of bail, which shall consider the same in accordance with law, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the progress of the trial. 10.The office note is disposed of with these observations. PRATEEK JALAN, JFEBRUARY 13, 2026 SS/SV/JM/