Regular bail in a murder case is never granted lightly — but neither is it foreclosed by the label of the offence. In Dheeraj Toor v. The State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 1720/2026 with BAIL APPLN. 1766/2026, decided on 1 October 2026, the Delhi High Court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to two men who had spent three years and seven months in custody in a case under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The order shows how the bail calculus shifts once the investigation is over, the public witnesses have deposed and a co-accused already stands enlarged.
The case in outline
The two applicants were arrested on 8 February 2023 in connection with FIR No. 0058/2023 registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, arising out of the death of Bunty @ Vicky on 4 February 2023. The investigation invoked Section 302 (murder), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code — the IPC applying because the occurrence preceded 1 July 2024, when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced it for new offences. The prosecution relied, among other material, on DNA analysis matching the deceased’s profile on clothing recovered during investigation. A co-accused, Anshul Antil, had been granted bail earlier.
What had changed by October 2026
By the time the bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS were heard, the procedural landscape looked very different from the day of arrest. The chargesheet had long been filed; the trial was underway; and the public witnesses — the category most vulnerable to influence — had already been examined. The applicants had been in custody for three years and seven months with the trial still short of conclusion. On that footing, Justice Sachin Datta granted bail to both applicants on 1 October 2026.
Investigation live; recoveries and forensics pending; witnesses yet to depose; custody served clear investigative purposes.
Chargesheet filed; public witnesses examined; co-accused on bail; custody of 3 years 7 months with no early end to trial in sight.
The conditions that accompanied liberty
The grant was not unconditional. Each applicant was directed to furnish a bail bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount, and the order stipulated ten conditions. The pattern is familiar in Delhi practice and worth noting for anyone preparing such an application:
Not to leave the country without the court’s permission.
To furnish a verified residential address and inform the court of any change.
To keep a mobile number operational and reachable at all times.
To report to the investigating officer as and when directed.
To appear before the trial court on every date of hearing.
Not to contact, threaten or influence any witness, and not to tamper with evidence.
Reading the order as a practitioner
Three features of this order repay attention. First, the gravity of a Section 302 charge, by itself, did not defeat the application once the purposes of custody — protecting the investigation and the vulnerable witnesses — had been served. Second, parity operated as a genuine factor: where a co-accused stands enlarged and the roles are broadly comparable, the State must explain the differential treatment. Third, the modest bond amount reflects a settled principle of Delhi bail practice that monetary conditions are meant to secure attendance, not to price liberty beyond reach.
| Factor | Weight in this case |
|---|---|
| Stage of trial | Public witnesses examined — tampering apprehension substantially reduced |
| Length of custody | Three years seven months as undertrials, trial not near conclusion |
| Parity | Co-accused already on bail |
| Conditions | Ten safeguards tying the applicants to the trial and the investigating officer |
Practice pointer: in long-custody bail applications before the Delhi High Court, a one-page chronology — arrest date, chargesheet date, charge framing, witnesses examined versus cited, and the bail status of each co-accused — often does more work than pages of argument. This order was decided on exactly that kind of material.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the case and how long were the applicants in custody?
The applicants were arrested on 8 February 2023 in FIR No. 0058/2023, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, concerning the death of one Bunty @ Vicky on 4 February 2023, with offences under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC. By the time bail was granted on 1 October 2026 they had spent roughly three years and seven months in judicial custody as undertrials.
Why IPC and not the BNS?
Because the offence and the FIR date from February 2023, before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. For occurrences after that date, the corresponding provisions would be Sections 103(1) (murder), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) and 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS. The bail application itself, however, is governed procedurally by the BNSS — hence Section 483.
What factors supported bail despite a murder charge?
Investigation was complete and the chargesheet filed; the trial had progressed substantially, with public witnesses already examined, reducing any realistic apprehension of tampering; the custody period was long with the trial still to conclude; and a co-accused had earlier been granted bail, bringing parity into play.
What conditions were imposed?
Each applicant was released on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to ten conditions — including not leaving the country without leave of the court, furnishing and updating a residential address and a working mobile number, reporting to the investigating officer as directed, attending every date of trial, and refraining from contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.