Five Years Behind Bars: Delhi HC Frees Man in Kidnap-Murder Case, Slams Trial Delays

In a stark reminder that justice delayed can erode constitutional rights, the Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Ranjit Mehto , accused in a chilling 2021 abduction-for-ransom and murder case. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ruled that five years of pre-trial detention in a purely circumstantial evidence matter violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision, delivered on May 5, 2026, underscores how slow trials can tip the scales against undertrials.

Echoing headlines like Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration In Circumstantial Evidence Case Violates Article 21: Delhi High Court , the ruling prioritizes liberty over indefinite custody when prosecution evidence remains untested.

The Ransom Call That Sparked a Nightmare

The saga began on February 6, 2021, when Shyam Mohan Shukla left home around noon without telling his wife, Nirmala Devi (the complainant). He called her at 2 PM saying he was with a friend, but by 7 PM, an unknown voice answered his phone promising a return the next day. On February 7, more calls came: one silencing contact with Shukla, another demanding Rs 45,000 ransom to a "Bhawani Telecom" account.

FIR No. 60/2021 was registered at PS Ashok Vihar under Sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom) and 365 IPC (kidnapping/abduction). Post-investigation, Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) were added via chargesheets in May 2021 and August 2024. Charges were framed in April 2022.

Mehto was arrested on February 12, 2021. Police claimed recovery of Shukla's decomposed, injured body from a jhuggi allegedly rented by Mehto, plus a blood-stained chopper. Call records and voice samples allegedly linked him to ransom demands.

Petitioner's Defense: Timeline Tears and Shaky Links

Mehto's counsel, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal, hammered the prosecution's timeline: the body was "recovered" at 2:30 PM, before Mehto's 5:55 PM arrest and the 6:15 PM post-mortem. This demolished claims of discovery via his disclosure statement under Section 27 Evidence Act .

No prior acquaintance with the victim, no rent agreement for the jhuggi, chopper from an open public space (FSL unlinked to crime), and ransom account not in Mehto's name. CCTV footage allegedly fingered him without prior suspect description. With over five years in custody and trial crawling (only 7/30 witnesses examined), she invoked the right to liberty.

Prosecution's Pushback: Witnesses, Recoveries, and Voice Clues

APP Ms. Shubhi Gupta countered with PW-3 Kishan Kumar 's ID of Mehto obtaining shop bank details (sent to victim's phone) under a Rs 500 pretext—the same details demanded for ransom. Key recoveries (body, chopper) at Mehto's instance from his rented jhuggi (landlady Seema's testimony, backed by his Aadhaar copy; he unlocked it). FSL voice report: calls to complainant possibly Mehto's voice. Seema's unexamined testimony risked tampering, plus Mehto's antecedents (one conviction, two other FIRs).

Weaving Circumstances, But Time Runs Out: Court's Sharp Scrutiny

Justice Bhambhani noted the case hinges on circumstantial strands: recoveries, PW-3's ID, jhuggi tenancy, voice match—no direct evidence. Timeline flaws, open-space recovery, absent FSL weapon link, and oral tenancy proof (no rent docs) demand trial testing.

Yet, the clincher: five years' custody with trial nascent (7/30 PWs done), delay not Mehto's fault. Serious offenses notwithstanding, this offends Article 21 . Citing Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Mohd. Hakim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2021), the court acted as "doctor" not "coroner"—preserving speedy trial rights early. Antecedents noted for conditions, not denial.

Tampering fears? Addressed via bail terms, not jail.

Key Observations

"prolonged pre-trial incarceration, in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence and where the trial is at a comparatively early stage, militates against the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

"this court must act as a ‘doctor’ rather than a ‘coroner’ and save the right to speedy trial from extinguishment rather than lament later that it should have been preserved."

"There is admittedly no direct evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged abduction or homicide of the deceased."

Bail with Strings: Freedom on Firm Conditions

Mehto walks on Rs 25,000 bond + surety, active phone contact, passport surrender, no witness contact/tampering, address updates. No reporting needed given court appearances.

Observations are bail-specific; merits for trial. This could nudge faster trials in circumstantial cases, balancing gravity against Article 21—liberty presumed until proven guilty.