Back
Grants Bail to Vikas and Aarush After Six Years, Cites Trial Delay
In a significant order underscoring the constitutional , the granted to two murder accused—Vikas and Aarush @ Bunty—who had been incarcerated for approximately six years. The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the prolonged detention, coupled with an exceptionally slow trial and the investigating officer’s repeated absences, constituted a warranting bail.
Six Years and Still Counting: The Case
The applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 284/2020 registered at under , along with . The incident, which occurred on , involved the fatal shooting of Dinesh Bhati. According to the testimony of PW-1, the deceased’s brother, the gunshot injury was inflicted by a co-accused, Akash, while Vikas and Aarush were alleged to have been involved in the beating and conspiracy. Both applicants had previously been denied in .
A Tale of Two Accused
Counsel for the applicants argued that their clients were innocent and falsely implicated. With six years already served and only 10 of 24 witnesses examined, the trial showed no signs of early conclusion. They highlighted that co-accused Arun had already been enlarged on bail, and the applicants’ other pending cases—one under the and another under for Vikas, and a case for Aarush—were matters in which they were already on bail. The pendency of those cases, they submitted, should not defeat their in the present matter.
The State's Objections
Opposing the bail applications, the State submitted that a country-made pistol was recovered at Vikas’s instance and that the ballistic report linked the weapon to the fatal injuries. For Aarush, the State pointed to the recovery of a surgical blade allegedly used in the offence and his role in the conspiracy. The State argued that neither applicant could claim Arun, whose role was limited to mere presence.
Legal Precedents on Liberty
The Court carefully applied the principles laid down in , which permits only if there is a . Here, the Court found that the slow progress of the trial—from 7 witnesses examined in to only 10 in , with three more deferred—constituted such a change. Citing and , the Court reiterated that pending trial, especially when the delay is not attributable to the accused, infringes upon the right to under .
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Kaurav made several pointed observations, particularly regarding the investigating officer’s conduct:
“The IO remained absent on more than 20 occasions and appeared before the learned Trial Court only once since the registration of the FIR. Such conduct is particularly disconcerting when viewed against the backdrop of the applicants having remained incarcerated for about six years.”
The Court also directed:
“Let a copy of this order be sent to the , for sensitizing the IO’s to ensure their timely cooperation in the expeditious conclusion of pending matters, particularly in cases where the accused have remained in custody for a considerable period.”
Quoting the in K.A. Najeeb , the bench noted:
“Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”
The Verdict and Its Implications
Allowing both bail applications, the Court directed that the applicants be released on subject to terms imposed by the trial court. The order clarified that the observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not influence the merits of the trial.
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to investigating agencies that systemic delays—especially the non-appearance of key officers—cannot be allowed to undermine the . By coupling the bail grant with a directive to the police commissioner, the High Court has sent a clear message: the is not negotiable, and those responsible for its frustration will be called to account.
