The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to two accused who had spent nearly six years in custody in a 2020 murder case, while expressing concern over the slow progress of the trial and repeated absence of the Investigating Officer (IO).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on August 13, 2026, in two connected bail applications arising from FIR No. 284/2020 registered at Sonia Vihar Police Station.
Background of the Case
The FIR relates to offences under Sections 302/34 and 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
The applicants, Vikas and Aarush @ Bunty, told the Court that they had already spent about six years in custody and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Vikas’ earlier bail application had been rejected on merits in April 2024, but the applicants argued that the substantial further incarceration and slow trial progress amounted to changed circumstances.
The State opposed bail, referring to the recovery of a country-made pistol allegedly at Vikas’ instance and a surgical blade allegedly recovered at Aarush’s instance.
Court Examines Slow Trial Progress
The Court noted that when the earlier bail application was rejected, seven prosecution witnesses had been examined. Despite another two years and four months passing, only 10 of the 24 witnesses had been examined, while the examination-in-chief of three witnesses remained pending.
Justice Kaurav observed that the delay constituted a fresh circumstance for reconsidering bail.
“The aforesaid delay in the progress of the trial, having occurred subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application, constitutes a supervening circumstance warranting reconsideration of the applicant's prayer for bail.”
The Court also referred to the testimony of PW-1 and noted that, on a prima facie reading, no overt act was attributed to the two applicants. The Court further observed that the cause of death was primarily attributable to the gunshot injury.
High Court Flags Repeated Absence of Investigating Officer
The Court took particular note of the Investigating Officer’s conduct. The record showed that the IO had remained absent from the trial proceedings on more than 20 occasions and had appeared before the Trial Court only once since registration of the FIR.
The High Court said the criminal justice system could not accept a situation where an accused remained in custody for years while proceedings were delayed because of repeated non-appearance of the investigating officer.
The Court accordingly directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for sensitising investigating officers about the need for timely cooperation in pending matters, particularly where accused persons have remained in custody for a considerable period.
Decision
Considering the applicants’ nearly six years of incarceration, the slow pace of the trial, only 10 of 24 witnesses having been examined, the delay not being attributable to them, and the absence of any overt role attributed to them in PW-1’s testimony, the High Court found that they had made out a case for regular bail.
The Court ordered their release on regular bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail applications and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
Case Details
Case Title: Vikas v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & connected matter Aarush @ Bunty v. State NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Bail Appln. 4963/2025 and Bail Appln. 783/2026
Judge: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decision Date: August 13, 2026
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
