Kunal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 March, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Kunal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 27 March, 2026

Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma

                          $~49
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         BAIL APPLN. 1199/2026
                                    KUNAL                                                                                   .....Petitioner
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Sourabh Rai, Ms. Parmeshwari
                                                                                      Kumari Dhayal, Mr. Aman Dalal, Ms.
                                                                                      Shruti Agrawal, Mr. Aman Kumar
                                                                                      and Mr. Dinesh Chand Meena, Advs.

                                                                  versus

                                    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                                                  .....Respondent
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State.

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
                                                                  ORDER

% 27.03.2026 CRL.M.A. 9261/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1199/2026

3. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 725/2025, registered at Police Station Bawana, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter „BNS‟) and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959.

4. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that on 07.12.2025, a PCR call was received at PS Bawana regarding firing by three This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 unknown persons riding a black Splendor motorcycle, who had allegedly attempted to shoot the caller. Upon reaching the spot, one empty cartridge was recovered and seized. Thereafter, the complainant, Yamin, gave his statement stating that on 08.12.2025, while he was on his scooter near Sultanpur, three boys, whom he had seen earlier with co-accused Mohit Dahiya, rammed their motorcycle into his scooter, causing him to fall. It is alleged that two of them took out pistols and fired 3-4 shots at him with an intention to kill, however, he managed to escape and informed the police.

5. During investigation, the complainant expressed suspicion that the attack was orchestrated by Vicky Dabas @ Haddal, along with Rahul and Mohit Dahiya, due to prior enmity and threats extended to him. The present applicant, Kunal, was arrested on 14.12.2025. As per the prosecution, he, along with co-accused persons, had conspired to commit the offence and, on the day of the incident, had driven the motorcycle and hit the complainant‟s scooter, after which the co-accused fired gunshots at the complainant. The applicant was identified by the complainant in TIP proceedings. Other co- accused persons were subsequently arrested, and the charge sheet has been filed qua the present applicant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Status Report incorrectly records that recovery of the weapon of offence was effected from the present applicant, whereas no such recovery has in fact been made. The learned counsel further submits that charges have not yet been framed in the present case. It is also argued that the applicant is a first-year LL.B. student, has no previous criminal antecedents, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, it is prayed This is a digitally signed order.

7. The learned APP for the State fairly submits that it has been inadvertently mentioned in the Status Report that recovery was effected from the present applicant, whereas no such recovery has been made from him. It is also not disputed that charges have not yet been framed. However, it is contended that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature, and thus, the present bail application deserves to be rejected.

8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the case file.

9. After hearing arguments and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that no injury was caused to the complainant in the present case. This Court also notes that no recovery was effected from the possession of the present accused/applicant, and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is further noted that charges have not yet been framed in the present case. The applicant is pursuing LL.B. and is a first- year student. Moreover, he has been in judicial custody since 14.12.2025.

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions:

i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial court.

ii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the This is a digitally signed order.

iii) The applicant shall appear regularly before the learned Trial Court, unless exempted.

iv) The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

12. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 27, 2026/ns/A TD This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 5017/2025 PRATHAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Utkarsh Pandey, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Pramod Kumar , Crime Branch CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA ORDER % 27.03.2026

1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in a case arising out of FIR bearing no. 406/2024, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 309(4)/333/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNS').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as per the statement of the complainant, are that on 03.07.2024 at about 1:45 PM, while the complainant was resting at her house along with her daughter, two unknown persons came to her residence on the pretext that they were painting the adjacent house and that their paint brush had fallen from the roof. Upon gaining entry and proceeding upstairs with the complainant, the said persons gagged her and forcibly removed her gold earrings, weighing approximately This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 8 grams. On the arrival of the complainant‟s daughter at the spot, both the accused persons fled from the premises. Based on the statement of the complainant, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage from the vicinity was examined, wherein two suspects were seen fleeing from the spot. On 04.07.2024, acting on secret information, Pratham (the present applicant) and co-accused Rupender Singh were apprehended near Jwala Nagar Railway Line.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that no recovery of the alleged stolen property has been effected at his instance. It is further contended that there is an unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged incident took place at 01:45 PM, whereas the FIR was registered only at 07:10 PM. It is also argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody for about two years, and the complainant has already been examined before the learned Trial Court; therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, the applicant would threaten or influence the complainant. Accordingly, it is prayed that bail be granted to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State argues that a judicial Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the applicant was conducted, wherein the complainant had duly identified the applicant. It is further submitted that in her testimony recorded before the learned Trial Court, the complainant has again identified the accused persons. It is also contended that one of the eye- witnesses, the daughter of the complainant, is yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court and thus, considering the seriousness of the allegations, This is a digitally signed order.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, and has perused the material on record.

6. In a nutshell, the allegations against the applicant are that he, along with the co-accused Rupender, had entered the complainant‟s house on the false pretext that they were painters engaged in painting an adjacent house and that their paintbrush had fallen onto the roof of her premises. Thereafter, upon gaining entry and proceeding upstairs with the complainant, the applicant had allegedly gagged her and forcibly removed her gold earrings, weighing approximately 8 grams.

7. This Court notes that the complainant has been examined before the learned Trial Court as PW-1, and has reiterated the entire incident. The relevant portion is mentioned below:

"Thereafter, I alongwith abovesaid person reached at the first floor of the abovesaid house. Suddenly, one accused person namely Rupender (present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness who was wearing white blue check half sleeves shirt and blue jeans caught hold my both hands from back side and another accused Pratham (present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness who was wearing white shirt and blue jeans put cloth and tied my mouth. Thereafter, accused Rupender forcefully removed my both ear rings (weight about 8 grams). As soon as accused removed the cloth from my mouth, I raised hue and cry."

8. Further, it is noted that during her examination before the learned Trial Court, the complainant (PW-1) has duly identified the applicant.

9. It is also pertinent to note that another material witness, i.e. daughter of the complainant, who is also an eyewitness to the incident, is yet to be This is a digitally signed order.

10. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the daughter of the complainant, who is also an eyewitness, is yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court, and that the complainant, in her testimony, has supported the prosecution's case, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.

12. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 27, 2026/ns rb This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 417/2026 K@K .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Chauhan and Mr. Sumit Verma, Advocates versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA ORDER % 27.03.2026

1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 134/2022, registered at Police Station Jahangirpuri, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter „IPC‟).

2. Status Report and Nominal Roll has not been received.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2022, three Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) had gone to A-Block School, Jahangirpuri, for COVID vaccination; however, due to non-availability of the vaccine, they proceeded to Ramleela Park, Main BJRM Hospital Road, near Khatta, K-Block, Jahangirpuri, New Delhi, where they started playing gilli danda. At about 2:00 PM, the deceased, namely Hibbu @ Shibbu, who was known to CCL V @ B, was present at the spot. It is alleged that a This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 quarrel ensued after CCL V @ B abused the deceased and struck him with a gilli danda stick. Thereafter, CCL V @ B allegedly handed over the stick to CCL K @ K, asked CCL S to record the incident on his mobile phone, and thereafter took out a knife from his jacket/hoodie and inflicted a stab injury upon the deceased. As per Post Mortem Report No. 69/2022 dated 20.01.2022, the cause of death is stated to be haemorrhagic shock due to a stab injury to the lower back, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The medical evidence thus attributes the fatal injury to the act of stabbing.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the prosecution case reflects that the alleged fatal injury was inflicted solely by CCL V @ B, and the role attributed to the present applicant (CCL K @ K) is limited to his presence at the spot. It is contended that the applicant had no prior knowledge of any dispute or enmity between CCL V @ B and the deceased, nor was he aware that CCL V @ B was carrying any weapon. It is further stated that no recovery has been effected from the applicant, and that the alleged weapon of offence and mobile phone were recovered from CCL V @ B, and bloodstains were found on his clothes and shoes. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet has been filed before the concerned Court. It is argued that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.01.2022, and the sole eye-witness in the case has not supported the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court. Thus, it is prayed that the applicant be granted regular bail.

5. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that he was This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 involved in the commission of the offence, wherein all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to the deceased, resulting in his death. It is further contended that prosecution witnesses are presently being examined before the learned Trial Court, and at this stage, the present bail application deserves to be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the case file.

7. In a nutshell, the allegations against the applicant are that he was present at the spot along with the co-accused persons at the time of the incident and was part of the sequence of events leading to the commission of murder of the deceased.

8. This Court notes that the sole eye-witness in the present case has admittedly turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The applicant has remained in judicial custody for more than 04 years. Moreover, out of about 25 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only about 07 witnesses have been examined thus far, including the material/public witnesses, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

9. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions:

i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court and if he has passport, he This is a digitally signed order.

ii) The applicant shall share his contact details (mobile numbers and residential address) with the IO/SHO and the Trial Court; and in case of any change in the said details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court and the concerned IO/SHO.

iii) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing unless exempted;

iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity;

v) The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

10. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.

11. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 27, 2026/rr TD This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08 $~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2300/2026 XX .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla and Ms. Shruti Kapur, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA ORDER % 27.03.2026 CRL.M.A. 9391/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2300/2026, CRL.M.A. 9389/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9390/2026

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"I. Set aside the Order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Special Fast Track Court, Dwarka in the matter titled „State v. Gyanander Singh, SC 677 of 2021‟;

II. Permit the Petitioner/Prosecutrix to lead evidence in respect of the Supplementary Chargesheet dated 26.08.2022 and the documents annexed;"

4. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State and seeks time to file the Status Report. Let the same be filed, at least two days prior to the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to the other side.

5. Issue notice to respondent no.2 by all permissible modes, including This is a digitally signed order.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws this Court‟s attention to the order dated 13.12.2022, passed by the learned Trial Court, which mentions that a supplementary charge-sheet is to be filed on record and the Court is to take cognizance of the same. The learned counsel also draws this Court‟s attention to the supplementary charge-sheet, which mentions that a pen drive along with an affidavit under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been filed.

7. This Court notes that despite the supplementary charge-sheet being on record, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/prosecutrix for recording of her evidence in respect of the supplementary chargesheet dated 26.08.2022 and the documents annexed therewith.

8. The proceedings before the learned Trial Court are stayed.

9. List on 24.04.2026.

10. In the meantime, let the Trial Court Record, in digitized form, be called for, at least two days prior to the next date of hearing.

11. Both the parties are directed to file their written submissions, not running into more than three pages, and relevant case laws that they want to rely upon. Let the same be filed at least two days prior to the next date of hearing.

12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J MARCH 27, 2026/A/TS This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 22:52:08

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders