Delhi High Court

BAIL APPLN./3178/2026 of PANKAJ Vs THE STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI on 7 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

3178/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.08.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010361052026 + BAIL APPLN. 3178/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23934/2026 PANKAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sujit Kumar amd Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates versus THE STATE GOVT NCT OF

$~68

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 07.08.2026

CNR No. DLHC010361052026

+

BAIL APPLN. 3178/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23934/2026

PANKAJ

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sujit Kumar amd Mr. Rohit

Singh, Advocates

versus

THE STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State

with Inspector Rajiv Ranjan and SI

Amit

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.538/2021 of PS Jahangir Puri for offence under Section 302/365/120B/34 IPC.

2. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is as follows. On 01.06.2021, an information regarding missing of a young boy namely Ashit Das was received at PS Jahangir Puri. On the basis of examination of successive CCTV footages, it got revealed that Ashit Das was abducted by four persons on two motorcycles and was taken inside the GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556 9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.08.07 17:19:49 +05'30'

metro construction site behind Majlis Park metro station after which those four persons were visible coming out but the abducted boy was not seen. Those four persons on motorcycles were identified to be the security staff of metro. Subsequently, dead body of the abducted boy was recovered. Further investigation revealed that the dead body was thrown away in drainage in an effort to destroy evidence.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the accused/ applicant is in custody since the year 2021 and long incarceration in itself is a ground for bail. It is also submitted that all material witnesses stand examined in trial. It is submitted that the deceased was suspected to be a thief, involved in theft of iron sarias from metro construction site. No other argument has been presented.

4. Learned APP for State assisted by IO Inspector Rajiv Ranjan accepts notice and strongly opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of the offence. It is also stated that some of the witnesses of recoveries of the weapons allegedly used in the assault are yet to be examined by the trial court, though eight prosecution witnesses out of twenty-nine have already been examined.

5. Of course, long incarceration is a vital ground while considering grant of bail. But that is not the only ground, which can be invoked, ignoring the gravity of the offence. The accused/applicant along with his three associates, being the security staff of metro, not just abducted a young boy on suspicion GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.08.07 17:19:39 +05'30'

of his being thief, but also took him to a deserted construction site and killed him with dandas and rods according to prosecution. Even if the deceased was a thief, as suspected by the accused persons, nothing permitted them to take law in their hand instead of handing him over to the police. Merely because the accused persons were security staff of metro, they had no legal authority to assault the deceased.

6. As mentioned above, vital witnesses of prosecution related to recoveries of the weapons of offence are yet to be examined in trial.

7. Considering the above factors, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application as well as the accompanying application is dismissed.

8. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant immediately.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) AUGUST 07, 2026/as GIRISH KATHPALIA

2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,

570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.08.07 17:19:21 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead