Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddharth S. Yadav, Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar, Mr v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

made against him in the subject FIR and in the charge-sheet, inter- alia contending that the case against him is inconceivable since prisoners are not allowed to carry towels, gamchas, belts, or ropes, etc. in a jail van; and therefore the allegation that the two victims were killed by strangulation using gamchas is wholly untenable. 10. Since the merits of the allegations in the subject FIR are subject matter of the pending trial, this court would steer clear of making any comments thereon. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

11. To substantiate his case for grant of bail, the principal contention raised by Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the petitioner has been in judicial custody in the Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:15.01.2025 14:37:19 BAIL APPLN. 1203/2024 subject FIR for more than 09 years; that the prosecution has cited 79 witnesses in the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet filed in the case, of whom only 32 witnesses have been examined so far; that the petitioner is a married man, about 35 years of age, is a permanent resident of Delhi and there is no chance of him fleeing from trial; and that therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.

12. Learned senior counsel has dilated upon his case for bail, making the following submissions : 12.1. Aside from all other grounds, it is submitted that the petitioner has been in the judicial custody in the subject FIR for about 09 years, while only 32 out of 79 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is therefore clear that trial in the matter would take a long time to complete; and the petitioner is accordingly entitled to be released on regular bail to preserve his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as enunciated by the Supreme Court inter-alia in Sheikh Javed Iqbal alias Ashfaq Ansari alias Javed Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1 It is submitted that in the said case the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 is over-arching and sacrosanct and that no undertrial can be detained in custody indefinitely, pending trial. 1 (2024)8 SCC 293 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:15.01.2025 14:37:19 BAIL APPLN. 1203/2024

12.2. It is submitted that since in the present case it is obvious that timely completion of trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significantly long period of time, the court would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge the accused on bail. In support of this submission, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the recent decisions of the in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, 2 Supreme Court Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 3 Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India,4 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement5and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Mohd. Tahir vs. State.6

12.3. It has also been argued that the main ground on which the State is opposing grant of bail is that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and that the petitioner has several other criminal cases pending against him. It is submitted however, that the legal position is that only because an offence alleged is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against a person, that by itself is not a factor for refusing bail in a given case, if there are other circumstances justifying grant of bail. In support of this submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar 2 3 4 5 6