Delhi High Court decries systemic delay in bail hearings as violation of fundamental rights

Background of the case

The Delhi High Court, in an oral order in Amir Vs State NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 4703/2024 & Crl.M.(Bail) 1945/2025, Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:1202, dated 12.02.2026, has strongly criticised the prolonged pendency of bail applications before criminal courts.

The matter was heard by a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Girish Kathpalia, who delivered a pointed and unambiguous order highlighting that keeping bail pleas pending for inordinate periods inflicts mental agony on undertrial accused persons and directly infringes their fundamental rights under the Constitution.

The observations were made in the context of a regular bail application filed by an accused facing allegations of murder. The bail petition was moved before the Delhi High Court in December 2024 but, despite multiple listings before various benches, it was actually heard for the first time only on 12.02.2026.

The Court’s order goes beyond the individual case and touches upon a systemic problem: the undue delay in deciding bail applications both in the Sessions Courts and in the High Court.

Facts leading to the bail application

FIR and offences involved

The accused, Amir, sought regular bail in:

  • Case FIR No. 654/2021
  • Police Station: Seemapuri
  • Alleged offences: Section 302/307/34 IPC

The prosecution case, as broadly noticed by the Court, can be summarised as follows:

  1. On the date of the incident, the complainant de facto, Anees, was present with his friends – Subhan, Sohail, Arshad and Sameer – and they were engaged in conversation.
  2. At that point, three individuals – Hemant, Nursingh and Amir (the present accused/applicant) – allegedly approached the group.
  3. A verbal altercation reportedly broke out between the two groups.
  4. During this quarrel, Hemant is stated to have caught hold of Shoaib from behind.
  5. Nursingh allegedly stabbed Shoaib with a sharp-edged weapon.
  6. When Sohail intervened to protect Shoaib, the present accused/applicant Amir allegedly restrained Sohail from behind.
  7. Nursingh is then alleged to have stabbed Sohail as well.
  8. Shoaib succumbed to his injuries, whereas Sohail survived and later deposed before the trial court.

Thus, the prosecution attributed to Amir the role of restraining Sohail while the co-accused Nursingh carried out the stabbing. The allegations against him are therefore in the nature of common intention (Section 34 IPC) coupled with the substantive offences under Section 302 and Section 307.

Custody and stage of trial

  • The accused/applicant has been in judicial custody since 24.10.2021.
  • By the time the matter came to be heard on 12.02.2026, all public witnesses, including the injured witness Sohail, had already been examined before the trial court.

This stage of the proceedings was significant for the Court’s analysis of whether continued detention of the accused was justified.

Submissions before the High Court

Arguments advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant

Counsel appearing for the accused/applicant contended, in substance, as follows: