I.A. No. : 31/2026 SC No. : 103/21 FIR No. : 51/2020 U/s : 307/186/353/216/188/147/148/149/34/174-A IPC and 25/27 Arms Act PS : Jafrabad Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan vs. State

12.03.2026 Present : Sh. Abdul Gaffar, Sh. Sameer Khan, Sh. Danish Khan, Sh.

Junaid Nisar and Sh. Nakul Sharma counsel for the applicant/accused (through VC).

Sh. Anuj Handa Special PP for the State alongwith Sh.

Shubham Pandey and Sh. Ayush Vishwakarma Adv.

I.O/SI Arvind in person.

1. The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan u/s 483 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail.

2. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant has been charged for the offence u/s 307 IPC and his act is punishable with imprisonment for Ten years and as the applicant has spent more than half of the period of sentence in custody, he deserves bail. Regarding this relief Ld. counsel for the applicant submitted that although the application has been filed u/s 483 of BNSS but the applicant must get benefit of the provision as given u/s 436-A Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that I.A. No. : 31/2026 Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan vs. State FIR No. : 51/2020 Page No. 1 of 10 SAMEER b B y A J S P A A M I EER BAJPAI Date:

2026.03.12

15:03:10 +0530 although the Cr.P.C. has been repealed and BNSS has come into force but the provision which is more beneficial to the applicant must be taken into consideration and as such the applicant deserves bail u/s 436-A Cr.P.C.

3. On merits, the submission on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail for last about six years and trial is not coming to an end shortly. It is further submitted that till date the prosecution has examined only 15 witnesses and still to examine about 45 witnesses and as such the trial will definitely take a very long time.

4. It is further the submission on behalf of the applicant that the prosecution has already examined the eye-witnesses, material witnesses and more importantly the complainant and as such there is no apprehension that the applicant may influence any witness, if enlarged on bail and therefore, bail should be granted to him.

5. Further, it is a settled principle of law that pre-trial detention of the accused is not fair and the purpose of detention is only to secure the presence of the accused and if the accused is enlarged on bail, he will join the trial regularly and the trial will not hamper in any way.

6. Further, the accused was on interim bail on a few occasions but he never misused the liberty as granted by the Court and kept on attending I.A. No. : 31/2026 Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan vs. State FIR No. : 51/2020 Page No. 2 of 10

15:03:20 the Court proceedings in between and then surrendered before the concerned Jail Superintendent in time. As such considering the conduct of the accused, the desired relief may be granted to him.

7. Further, it is well settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and when the accused has already passed about six years in jail, he should be granted bail in routine.

8. Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused in support of his submission that the applicant deserves the relief in view of Section 436-A Cr.P.C. and is entitled for the benefit retrospectively, despite coming into force the BNSS, has relied upon the following judgments :

(i) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

MANU/SC/0526/1994 (ii) State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

MANU/SC/7644/2008 (iii) Rattan Lal vs. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0072/1964 (iv) T. Barai vs. Henru Ah Hoe and Ors. MANU/SC/0123/1982 (v) Anil Kumar Yadav vs. Directorate of Enforcement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in CRM (M) No. 329/25

9. In support of other submissions, the Ld. counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments :

I.A. No. : 31/2026 Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan vs. State FIR No. : 51/2020 Page No. 3 of