The Delhi High Court has observed that accused persons cannot prolong their trials through their defence counsel and subsequently seek bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, cautioning against the misuse of the legal process.

“….it is being observed in a number of cases that initially the defence counsel would somehow protract the trial and thereafter raise the delay in trial as a ground for bail. Such misuse of process has to be understood in its proper perspective,” Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.

The Court made the observations while dismissing the bail plea moved by one Sanam Dagar,accused of opening fire at a gym in Delhi, injuring a man with three bullets.

The prosecution alleged that Dagar, along with his associates, entered a gym and fired six to seven rounds, three of which hit the victim. The incident was captured on CCTV footage, which was played before the Court allegedly showed Dagar, wearing an orange T-shirt, opening fire with a pistol.

Dagar sought bail on the grounds that a co-accused had already been granted bail and that was been in custody for a long time. His counsel also argued that the public witnesses had been examined.

Rejecting the plea for bail on the ground of parity, the Court observed that the role attributed to Dagar was distinct from that of the co-accused.

It noted that the three bullet injuries sustained by the victim were caused by the pistol allegedly fired by Dagar, whereas the co-accused's pistol had jammed and could not function.

On the issue of prolonged incarceration, the Court noted that the defence had failed to place on record the trial court's ordersheets to demonstrate that it was not responsible for the delay in concluding the trial.

The Court further pointed out that despite the injured witness appearing before the trial court for cross-examination on September 14, the defence counsel had chosen not to appear.

It noted that the date for cross-examination had been specifically fixed by the High Court in the presence of both parties during the previous hearing of the bail application.

The Court also rejected the argument that public witnesses were examined, observing that the injured witness's unchallenged testimony and the CCTV footage depicting the alleged offence could not be ignored.

“Further, even the manner in which the alleged offence was committed is clearly depicted in CCTV footage and the same cannot be ignored. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail at this stage, so the bail application is dismissed,” the Court said.