In Md Farhan v. State of NCT Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 3533/2026, decided 5 November 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court dismissed a regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a case arising from a late-night iron-rod assault in which a shot was also allegedly fired at the complainant. With custody standing at one year, ten months and eight days, the petition squarely posed the recurring question of bail practice: how much weight does prolonged incarceration carry against a strong prima facie record?
The case in one view
| Case | Md Farhan v. State of NCT Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 3533/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Mini Pushkarna |
| Decided | 5 November 2026 |
| FIR | No. 789/2024, P.S. Ranhola (Outer District) — Sections 109(1)/3(5) BNS with Sections 25/27 Arms Act; further BNS provisions added on chargesheet |
| Custody | About 1 year 10 months at the date of the order; trial before ASJ-09 (West), Tis Hazari, at arguments on charge |
| Outcome | Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS dismissed |
The incident and the investigation
On the night of 18 November 2024 the complainant was attacked with iron rods near his home, and a shot was allegedly fired at him; the MLC recorded grievous injuries. The petitioner was arrested within days, on 23 November 2024, after analysis of CCTV footage. Iron rods were recovered, and the complainant identified the petitioner in a test identification parade. The chargesheet followed in February 2025, and by the time the High Court heard the bail application, the Sessions case stood listed for arguments on charge on 20 November 2026.
The rival arguments
For the petitioner
Custody of almost two years without even charges being framed; the evidence is documentary and electronic, incapable of being tampered with; a TIP is merely corroborative and cannot anchor continued detention.
For the State and the victim
CCTV footage captures the assault; the TIP is positive; eyewitness statements under Section 180 BNSS and weapon recoveries complete the chain; the conduct shows co-ordinated unlawful-assembly action; and the trial is at the charge stage, not stalled.
How the Court weighed it
Justice Pushkarna’s reasoning followed the orthodox structure of bail adjudication. First, the prima facie assessment: the CCTV footage, the complainant’s consistent account, the positive TIP and the recoveries together crossed the threshold. Second, the counterweights: the gravity of a co-ordinated armed assault with a firearm, and the live risk of witness tampering with the complainant and eyewitnesses yet to depose. Third, the custody factor: substantial, but not yet of the order that overwhelms everything else — particularly with the trial court seized of arguments on charge within weeks.
The Court anchored the approach in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar — including its reminder, drawn from Ram Govind Upadhyay, that bail discretion must be exercised on the nature of the accusation and the evidence — and in the recent restatement of the Prahlad Singh Bhati and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar factors in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.
Reading the order in practice
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was bail refused despite nearly two years of custody?
The Court found a prima facie case from the CCTV footage of the assault, the complainant's consistent account, a positive test identification parade and the recovery of weapons. Against that record, long custody alone did not outweigh the gravity of the offence and the risk of witness tampering, particularly with arguments on charge already listed.
Is a TIP enough to deny bail?
A test identification parade is corroborative material, as the defence argued. But at the bail stage the court looks at the cumulative picture — here the TIP sat alongside CCTV footage, eyewitness statements under Section 180 BNSS and weapon recoveries, which together satisfied the prima facie threshold.
What is the legal standard applied?
The Court applied the settled bail factors — nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, danger of witnesses being influenced, and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge — drawing on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and the recent restatement in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan.
Does refusal now mean the accused stays in custody until judgment?
No. Bail jurisprudence recognises that circumstances change. If the trial stalls after charges are framed, or material witnesses are examined without incident, a fresh application on changed circumstances remains open.