In the first trial, Manu Sharma was acquitted, leading to a huge uproar in the country, despite strong circumstantial evidence to convict the accused, questioning the acquittal, claiming it was not based on merit.

On 29 April 1999, Lal was one of several models working at an unlicensed bar at a party in a restaurant overlooking the Qutub Minar in Mehrauli.

[2][3][4] Due to confusion, a fight followed the shooting, during which Sharma and his friends — Amardeep Singh Gill, Vikas Yadav, and Alok Khanna — left the scene.

[6] Amit Jhigan, an accomplice of Sharma, was arrested on 8 May and charged with conspiring to destroy evidence, as it was believed that he had retrieved the pistol from its original hiding place near the bar.

While he was remanded in custody, Yadav was still at large and it had also proved impossible to locate his father, who had promised to deliver his son to the police.

[7] Subsequently, he had short spells in custody and longer periods when he was freed on bail, with decisions and overturnings of them being made in various court hearings.

These included Shayan Munshi, Andleeb Sehgal, Karan Rajput, Shiv Lal Yadav and two ballistics experts, Roop Singh and Prem Sagar.

The trial judge commented after the outcome that The court has acquitted them because the Delhi police failed to sustain the grounds on which they had built up their case.

[12]The Hindu newspaper also reported that the judge was aware that the prosecution was not assisted by the hostility of their witnesses, three of whom had seen the shooting, and by the fact that forensic examination contradicted police claims that two cartridges found at the scene were fired from the same weapon.

Finally, the judge believed that the police had failed to provide a sufficient explanation of the chain of events which led up to the killing.

The New York Times described the situation a fortnight later Most noticeably among India's urban middle class, the acquittal has released a pent-up frustration with an often blundering and corrupt law enforcement bureaucracy and a deep disgust with the rich and famous who, by all appearances, manipulated it to their advantage.

[13]There were numerous protest campaigns, including ones involving SMS and email, seeking to obtain redress for the perceived miscarriage of justice.

Mostly the judiciary is depended on the evidence provided by the investigative agencies, but now when the situation is so bad, the judges have to wake up, be proactive and find the truth.

[18] On 15 December 2006, the High Court ruled that Sharma was guilty based on existing evidence, and also criticised the trial judge, S. L.

[19] The judgment said that the lower court had been lax in not considering the testimony of witnesses such as Bina Ramani and Deepak Bhojwani, stating regarding the treatment of the latter's evidence that, "With very great respect to the learned judge [Bhayana], we point out that this manner of testing the credibility of the witness is hardly a rule of appreciation of evidence. ...

Obviously, this reflects total lack of application of mind and suggests a hasty approach towards securing a particular end, namely the acquittal.

[20][21] Sharma's lawyer announced that the decision would be appealed in Supreme Court because the judgment was wrong in holding Bina Ramani to be a witness.

[20] On 24 September 2009, the government in Delhi paroled Sharma for a 30-day period so that he could attend to some matters relating to his sick mother and the family business.

In May 2013, Delhi High Court ordered prosecution of Bollywood actor Shayan Munshi and a ballistic expert, P. S. Manocha, for turning hostile.