Murder is the gravest charge in the ordinary criminal calendar, and courts rightly treat bail in such cases with caution. But caution is not a substitute for justification. In Abu Usman v. The State of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 651/2026, decided 8 October 2026), the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused who had spent about three years and nine months in judicial custody, where the material public witnesses had already been examined and the trial showed no sign of concluding soon. The order is a careful application of the settled rule that the gravity of the offence, by itself, cannot be the sole basis for refusing bail.
The case
The prosecution’s case was grim and specific. On 31 July 2022, a 22-year-old man was stabbed to death near Sherpur Chowk, Khajuri. The post-mortem attributed death to haemorrhagic shock from a single sharp-weapon wound to the abdomen. The motive alleged against the applicant was rivalry over a relationship; the conspiracy was said to have been hatched a day earlier with three co-accused, and the victim lured to the spot by telephone.
The evidence against the applicant consisted principally of identification from CCTV footage by two public witnesses and call detail records placing the accused in contact. He was arrested in Bengaluru about four months after the incident and had remained in judicial custody since 16 December 2022.
How the Court approached it
Justice Sachin Datta’s order works through the familiar bail factors, but what gives it weight is the sequencing. The applicant’s first High Court application had been withdrawn in April 2024 with liberty to renew once the material witnesses were examined — a common and sensible course in serious cases. By October 2026 that condition had been met: the public witnesses, including both identification witnesses, stood examined, and what remained were official witnesses.
About three years and nine months in judicial custody, with the trial still far from conclusion.
The public witnesses — including the two CCTV identification witnesses — had deposed, so the risk of influence had substantially receded.
The reliability of CCTV identification and call detail records is a matter for trial, not for the bail court to pre-judge.
The applicant had no other criminal involvement, and no recovery had been effected at his instance.
Gravity versus Article 21
The State’s opposition rested on the brutality of the offence, the identification evidence and the applicant’s arrest away from Delhi months after the incident. The Court accepted that gravity is a relevant consideration — but, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate, (2026) 7 SCC 330, held that it cannot by itself be the sole basis for refusing bail. Where the trial is unduly delayed for no fault of the accused, the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed, and prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to become a punishment served before verdict.
The order is equally clear about what it does not decide. The Court expressly recorded that nothing in it is an opinion on the merits. A bail order in a murder case speaks only to liberty pending trial; the CCTV footage, the identification testimony and the call records will be weighed by the trial court on their own strength.
Practical takeaways
Stage your applications. Withdrawing a bail application with liberty to renew after material witnesses are examined is not a defeat — it builds the foundation for a stronger application later, as it did here.
Track the witness list. The dividing line between public and official witnesses matters. Once the witnesses who could plausibly be influenced have deposed, the State’s strongest objection loses most of its force.
Document the delay. A custody-and-delay argument succeeds when the record shows the accused did not cause adjournments. Where delay lies with the prosecution or the system, Article 21 does real work.
The provisions involved
| Provision | Subject | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Section 483 BNSS | High Court’s power to grant bail | Corresponds to Section 439 CrPC |
| Section 528 BNSS | Inherent powers of the High Court | Corresponds to Section 482 CrPC |
| Sections 302 / 34 / 120B IPC | Murder, common intention, conspiracy | FIR of 2022 — IPC applies to pre-1 July 2024 offences; the BNS equivalents are Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2) |
For offences committed before 1 July 2024, the IPC continues to govern the substantive charge, while bail procedure now travels under the BNSS. This case is a working example of both regimes operating together.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the allegation against the applicant?
FIR No. 493/2022 of P.S. Khajuri Khas alleged that in July 2022 the victim was lured to a meeting and stabbed to death, with the applicant and three co-accused said to have conspired the previous day. The FIR invoked Sections 302, 34 and 120B IPC — murder, common intention and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution relied on CCTV identification by two public witnesses and call detail records.
Why did the Court grant bail despite a murder charge?
Four factors converged: custody of about three years and nine months; the public witnesses, including the two identification witnesses, had already been examined, so the apprehension of influencing them had receded; the remaining witnesses were official witnesses; and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon through no fault of the applicant. The Court held that gravity alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
Does an earlier withdrawn or rejected bail application bar a fresh one?
No. This was the applicant's second application before the High Court — the first was withdrawn in 2024 with liberty to renew after the material witnesses were examined, and a trial court application was dismissed in January 2026. A material change in circumstances, such as completion of public witness testimony and further lapse of time, justifies a fresh application.
What conditions were imposed on bail?
A personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, no contact with witnesses or the complainant's family, appearance on every trial date, no travel outside Delhi or abroad without permission, disclosure of addresses, a working mobile number with location enabled shared with the investigating officer, and monthly reporting to the SHO. Breach allows the State to seek cancellation.