Court highlights limited role of petitioner, completed investigation, and pending trial progress in bail decision under new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
In a significant judgment dated October 7, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sachin Datta, granted regular bail to Aniket, the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case involved an incident of assault with a knife at a wine shop in Nand Nagri, Delhi.
The petitioner, who had been in judicial custody since June 4, 2025, was alleged to have played a limited role by merely holding the complainant, while the knife assault was committed by co-accused Salman. The knife used in the attack was recovered at Salman's instance, with no recovery linked to the petitioner. The investigation was completed, chargesheet filed, and charges framed as of April 9, 2026, but the trial had yet to substantially progress, with material witnesses not yet examined.
The Court underscored the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception" entrenched in Indian criminal jurisprudence and reinforced by Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial and due process. The Court noted that the prolonged incarceration of undertrials without substantial trial progress effectively punishes the accused before adjudication, a practice inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
Referring to precedent Supreme Court judgments such as Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025) and Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate (2026), the Court reiterated that serious allegations or prior criminal involvement without conviction do not justify denying bail if other factors favor release. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's previous involvements that did not lead to conviction cannot alone be grounds for bail denial.
Given these considerations, the Court granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of equal amount, restrictions on travel, mandatory appearances, non-contact with complainant and witnesses, and regular reporting to police authorities.
This judgment reflects the evolving bail jurisprudence under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing the protection of individual liberty and the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.
Bottom Line:
Bail - Regular bail granted under BNSS in case under Sections 109(1), 3(5) BNS and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act - Applicant attributed limited role of catching hold of complainant, whereas knife assault and recovery of weapon were attributed to co-accused - Investigation completed, chargesheet filed, charges framed, but trial had not substantially progressed and material witness had not been examined - Previous criminal involvement without conviction held not by itself sufficient to deny bail - Prolonged incarceration of undertrial and right to speedy trial under Article 21 reiterated.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 483, 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 109(1), 3(5); Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25, 27
Aniket v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993321
