On 7 August 2026, Justice Girish Kathpalia of the High Court of Delhi decided two bail applications arising out of murder prosecutions. In Pankaj v. The State Govt NCT of Delhi, bail was refused despite years of custody. In Sagar @ Golu v. The State, bail was granted despite the gravity of the charge. Read together, the two orders illustrate how bail courts weigh the strength of the evidence, the stage of trial, and parity with co-accused — and why the length of incarceration, standing alone, decides nothing.
Two applications, one bench, one day
Bail jurisprudence is often taught through doctrine, but it is best understood through contrast. On 7 August 2026 the High Court of Delhi delivered two bail orders in murder prosecutions, both by Justice Girish Kathpalia, that reached opposite results for reasons that repay careful reading.
In Bail Appln. 3178/2026, Pankaj v. The State Govt NCT of Delhi, the applicant was an accused in FIR No. 538/2021, Police Station Jahangir Puri, registered under Sections 302, 365, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that a young man who went missing in June 2021 had been abducted — the abduction captured on CCTV — taken to a construction site, and did not emerge alive; his body was later disposed of in a drain. The applicant pressed the length of his custody since 2021 and contended that the material witnesses had been examined.
In Bail Appln. 2491/2025, Sagar @ Golu v. The State (Govt. of NCT, Delhi), the applicant was an accused in FIR No. 487/2018, Police Station Bawana, under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. A man was found dead of bullet injuries at the Bawana bus stand in December 2018. The case against the applicant rested on the custodial confession of the alleged shooter that the applicant had accompanied him; there was no eyewitness and, as the State fairly conceded, no other evidence connecting the applicant to the offence.
Why bail was refused in Pankaj
The Court accepted that long incarceration matters. But it held, in terms, that "long incarceration is a vital ground while considering grant of bail. But that is not the only ground." Two features weighed decisively against the applicant. First, the gravity of the allegations: the Court observed that even if the deceased had been suspected of theft, nothing permitted the accused persons to take the law into their own hands rather than hand him over to the police. Second, the stage of trial: only 8 of 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the recovery witnesses — central to the case — were yet to depose. Releasing the accused at that stage carried a real risk to the unrecorded evidence. The application was dismissed.
Why bail was granted in Sagar @ Golu
The second order turned on the quality of the evidence. A confession made to a police officer while in custody is inadmissible — a rule long embodied in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Where such a confession is the only thread connecting an accused to the offence, the prosecution case at the bail stage is inherently fragile. Added to this was parity: a co-accused, similarly placed, had already been granted bail, and the Court found no reason to deny the applicant the same liberty. Opposition founded on alleged gang rivalry and involvement in other cases did not displace these considerations. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety.
The two orders side by side
| Pankaj (refused) | Sagar @ Golu (granted) | |
|---|---|---|
| Charge | 302/365/120B/34 IPC | 302/120B/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act |
| Core evidence | CCTV of abduction; recoveries | Co-accused's custodial confession only |
| Stage of trial | 8 of 29 witnesses examined | No corroborating evidence cited |
| Parity | Not available | Co-accused already on bail |
| Long custody | Considered, not decisive | Reinforced the case for liberty |
What the contrast teaches
Three practical propositions emerge. First, delay and custody are arguments, not trump cards: where crucial witnesses remain unexamined, courts are slow to release an accused mid-stream in a grave case. Second, the admissibility and quality of the connecting evidence is scrutinised even at the bail stage; a case built solely on a custodial confession of a co-accused starts on the weakest possible footing. Third, parity remains one of the most effective grounds available, provided the applicant's role is genuinely comparable to that of the co-accused already enlarged on bail.
Both orders were passed at the bail stage and record prima facie assessments only; nothing in either order determines the guilt or innocence of any accused, which remains a matter for trial. This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does long custody as an undertrial entitle an accused to bail?
No. Prolonged incarceration is a vital consideration and courts treat it seriously, but it is weighed against the gravity of the offence, the stage of trial and the evidence still to be recorded. In Pankaj, the Court held that long incarceration "is not the only ground" and refused bail because material recovery witnesses were yet to be examined.
What is parity in bail, and when does it help?
Parity means that an accused whose role is the same as, or lesser than, that of a co-accused already on bail should ordinarily receive the same treatment. It helped in Sagar @ Golu because a similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail and no distinguishing material was shown against the applicant.
Can a confession made to the police be used against a co-accused?
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence, a rule found in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and continued in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Where the only material against an accused is a co-accused's custodial confession, courts treat the prosecution case as weak at the bail stage.
What conditions typically attach to bail in a murder case?
Courts commonly require a personal bond with one or more sureties, regular marking of attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of any travel documents where directed. In Sagar @ Golu, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.