A compromise does not end a prosecution for attempt to murder — Section 307 of the IPC is not compoundable — but it can transform the bail calculus. In Sonu @ Kishan Chand v. State (GNCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2710/2026, decided with Bail Appln. 2809/2026 on 14 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to two brothers after the complainant's counsel confirmed an inter se settlement and did not oppose their release. Justice Sachin Datta's order shows how a genuine settlement, combined with the stage of the evidence and the length of custody, can tip the balance towards liberty even in a serious offence.
The prosecution case and the long road to the High Court
The FIR — No. 0617/2022 of Police Station New Usmanpur — recorded an assault on the evening of 7 June 2022, in which two injured persons, Roshan and Neeraj, were said to have been attacked with a cutter blade near the Ambedkar Dharamshala in Naya Gaon Usmanpur. The two applicants, brothers, were charged along with others under Sections 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC, and their trial was pending as Sessions Case No. 338/2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts. Monu had been in custody since 8 June 2022 — the day after the incident — and Sonu since 16 May 2023. The trial court dismissed their bail applications on 20 May 2026, which brought them to the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS.
The settlement, placed on the record
What distinguished this hearing from an ordinary long-custody bail application was the complainant himself. His counsel, appearing virtually, confirmed that the parties had arrived at a compromise and stated that the complainant did not wish to continue with the prosecution. The Court did not treat this as a formality. It noted that the injured persons had already deposed — only the cross-examination of Neeraj remained — so the material evidence in the case stood largely secured, and the remaining stages of the trial did not require the applicants to be kept in custody.
A settlement in a non-compoundable case operates differently at different stages. It cannot compound the offence; it may, in a fit case, support quashing; and at the bail stage it is a relevant circumstance that speaks to the realistic risk of tampering and to whether detention still serves the trial. The Court here drew on a coordinate bench decision, Sumit Mann v. State, where bail had similarly followed an inter se settlement.
Bail is not punishment
Justice Sachin Datta anchored the order in the Supreme Court's decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, which emphasises that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment. With the complainant disinclined to prosecute, the eyewitness evidence substantially recorded, and custody running into its fourth and fifth years for the two brothers, the Court concluded that continued detention would be punitive rather than purposive.
The operative directions
- Personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount, each, to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- No departure from the NCT of Delhi, and no travel abroad, without the trial court's permission.
- Permanent and current addresses to be disclosed, with any change reported.
- An active mobile number with location services on, shared with the Investigating Officer.
- No contact with, inducement to, or tampering with witnesses, the complainant or his family.
- Attendance on every date of hearing, no involvement in criminal activity, and reporting to the SHO on the first Monday of each month between 11:00 AM and 12:00 PM.
The State retains liberty to seek cancellation of bail on any breach, and the Court recorded the usual caveat that its observations are confined to the bail decision and express no view on the merits.
What the order illustrates
For practitioners, the decision is a clean illustration of how to present a settled matter at the bail stage. The compromise was not merely asserted — the complainant's counsel appeared and confirmed it; the stage of evidence was documented, showing that what remained did not depend on the applicants' custody; and the custody arithmetic was placed squarely before the Court. None of these factors alone would compel bail in a Section 307 case. Together, they left the State's opposition with little practical content, and the Court said so in the language of principle: detention that no longer serves the trial serves only as punishment, which bail jurisprudence does not permit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the case about?
FIR No. 0617/2022, PS New Usmanpur, alleged that the two applicants, with others, assaulted two injured persons with a cutter blade near Ambedkar Dharamshala, Naya Gaon Usmanpur, on the evening of 7 June 2022. They faced trial under Sections 324, 307 and 34 of the IPC in SC No. 338/2022 before the Additional Sessions Judge-02, North-East, Karkardooma Courts. The trial court had dismissed their bail applications on 20 May 2026.
Can a Section 307 case be settled between the parties?
Attempt to murder is not compoundable, so a private settlement cannot by itself close the case; the trial continues unless the High Court quashes the proceedings in an appropriate matter. But at the bail stage, a confirmed compromise is a material circumstance. It bears on the risk of witness tampering, the likely course of the remaining evidence, and whether continued custody still serves any purpose.
What weighed with the Court in granting bail?
Three things: the complainant's counsel confirmed the compromise and said he did not wish to continue the prosecution; the injured witnesses had already deposed, with only one cross-examination pending, so the material evidence stood largely secured; and the applicants had been in custody since 2022 and 2023 respectively. The Court held that continued detention would be punitive, relying on the Supreme Court's statement in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra that bail is not to be withheld as punishment.
What conditions were imposed?
Personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each with one surety in the like amount; no departure from the NCT of Delhi or travel abroad without the trial court's permission; disclosure of addresses and any change; an active mobile number with location services shared with the IO; no contact with or inducement to witnesses or the complainant's family; attendance on every hearing date; and reporting to the SHO on the first Monday of each month. Breach allows the State to seek cancellation.