In Abu Usman v. The State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 651/2026, decided on 8 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a man accused of orchestrating a fatal stabbing in Khajuri in July 2022. The order is a study in how the ground beneath a bail application shifts as a trial progresses: an application withdrawn in 2024 while material witnesses remained, a trial court refusal in January 2026 for the same reason, and then a grant in October 2026 once the public witnesses had been examined and only official witnesses remained.
The case against the applicant
The prosecution's narrative was of a planned killing. On 30 July 2022, the applicant and three co-accused were said to have conspired; the next day, the deceased — Anwarul Haque, aged 22 — was lured by phone to Tukmeerpur Pulia and stabbed. The post-mortem recorded haemorrhagic shock from a single stab wound to the abdomen. The motive alleged was the applicant's wish to pursue a relationship with a woman who was involved with the deceased. The applicant was arrested in Bangalore roughly four months later, and had been in judicial custody since 16 December 2022.
The connecting evidence was of a particular kind: two witnesses identified the applicant from CCTV footage, and the prosecution relied on call detail records. No recovery was effected from the applicant; the weapon was allegedly recovered from a co-accused.
How the bail history shaped the outcome
The procedural history did much of the work in this case, and it repays attention.
Justice Sachin Datta's reasoning followed that arc precisely. The apprehension of witness influence, which had justified the earlier refusals, no longer applied once the public witnesses stood examined. What remained of the prosecution's case — the CCTV identification and the CDRs — raised questions of evidentiary weight that only the trial could answer. And the custody arithmetic had become stark: about three years and nine months, against an applicant with no other case, where the delay in trial was not attributable to him.
Gravity alone cannot answer Article 21
The State's opposition rested on the gravity of the offence, the identification evidence, the call records and the Bangalore arrest. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate (2026), held that the seriousness of an offence cannot by itself justify the refusal of bail where the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is affected. The applicant, it concluded, deserved release on bail subject to stringent conditions.
The conditions
- Personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount.
- No contact with witnesses or with the family of the deceased.
- Attendance on every date of hearing before the trial court.
- No departure from the NCT of Delhi, and no travel out of India, without permission.
- Residential addresses to be disclosed and kept updated with the Investigating Officer.
- A working mobile phone with location services on, shared with the IO; reporting to the SHO on the first Monday of each month.
The practice point
The order confirms a rhythm that Delhi practitioners will recognise in long-custody murder matters. A withdrawal with liberty, sought at the right moment, is not a defeat; it fixes the milestone — examination of material witnesses — at which the next application becomes winnable. When that milestone is crossed, the application should demonstrate three things from the record: that the tampering apprehension has been overtaken by events, that what remains of the prosecution evidence raises weight questions reserved for trial, and that the custody period now does work that gravity alone cannot answer. The Court's caveat, as always, was that nothing in the order touches the merits, which remain entirely open at trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the allegation against the applicant?
FIR No. 0493/2022, PS Khajuri Khas, alleged that on 31 July 2022 the deceased, a 22-year-old, was fatally stabbed near Sherpur Chowk. The prosecution's case, under Sections 302, 34 and 120B IPC, was that the applicant conspired with three co-accused a day earlier and that the deceased was lured by phone to the spot and attacked. The alleged motive concerned the applicant's interest in a woman who was in a relationship with the deceased.
What evidence connected the applicant to the offence?
Identification by two witnesses from CCTV footage, and call detail records. No recovery was made from the applicant — the weapon was allegedly recovered from a co-accused. The State also relied on his arrest from Bangalore about four months after the incident. The Court held that the weight of CCTV identification and CDRs is a matter for trial, not a reason to continue custody once the public witnesses had deposed.
Why was bail granted now when it had been refused earlier?
Earlier, the apprehension that the applicant might influence public witnesses justified refusal — a 2024 application was withdrawn with liberty to reapply after material witnesses were examined, and the trial court refused bail in January 2026 for that reason. By October 2026 the public witnesses stood examined and only formal and official witnesses remained, so that apprehension no longer applied. Custody of about three years and nine months, clean antecedents, and delay not attributable to the applicant completed the picture.
What conditions accompany the bail?
A personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount; no contact with witnesses or the deceased's family; attendance on all dates; no departure from the NCT of Delhi or from India without permission; disclosure and updating of addresses; a working mobile phone with location shared with the IO; and monthly reporting to the SHO. Breach permits the State to seek cancellation.