BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 v. STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 3(5), 61(2), 309(6), 310(2), 311, 317(3)
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. Presently, there is no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Mr. Manoj and Mr. Ajay Kumar Kumar Srivastav, Advocates. versus STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Narender. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 357/2024 of PS Chitranjan Park for offence under Section 309(6)/310(2)/311/317 (3)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh. BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.02.2026 17:15:20 Page 1 of 4 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Learned counsel for accused/applicant seeks parity with the bail granted to the co-accused persons by this court by way of orders annexed as Annexure P-7, P-8 and P-10.
Learned APP opposes the bail application, presenting submissions on the instructions of the IO, which submissions are contrary to or not raised in the case of bail applications of the remaining accused persons.
Broadly speaking, according the prosecution case, accused/applicant and his co-accused persons forcibly entered house of the complainant de facto and committed robbery. The total number of accused persons was stated to be 3-4 earlier during the hearing of bail application of co-accused Laiq Ahmad, but today it is stated by the IO that the total number of accused persons were 10. Further, according to prosecution the complainant de facto is engaged in the business of jewellery. But the alleged robbery involved snatching of only one anklet from foot of wife of the complainant de facto.
As per the FIR, which was registered on a complaint filed two days after the alleged incident, on 28.11.2024 at about 08:30pm, when after hearing some commotion from the side of kitchen the complainant de facto went there, he found his servant Harish had been caught hold of by 3-4 persons, one of whom was carrying a pistol and those intruders threatened his wife to hand over the entire money and gold otherwise she would be killed and thereafter, one of those intruders hit on the head of the BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.02.2026 17:15:20 Page 2 of 4 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48 35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2 eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA complainant de facto while another intruder snatched out anklet from foot of the wife of the complainant de facto and all of them ran away.
As recorded in the bail orders of the co-accused persons, the CCTV footages shown during arguments presented completely different pictures in the sense that the same depicted that the complainant de facto was sitting on ground and was attacked by few assailants with muffled faces. In the initially shown CCTV footage pertaining to the bail application of accused Laiq Ahmad, there was no footage depicting wife of the complainant de facto or the anklet being snatched. Subsequently, in the bail application of accused Suphiyan Ali, the CCTV footage shown was different. Today, another CCTV footage is shown by the IO, depicting a scuffle in the house, involving 3-4 persons and it is stated by the IO that the same depicts snatching of anklets from both feet of wife of the complainant de facto.
It is not just the three apparently distinct CCTV footages, it is also that the same do not depict the incident as narrated in the FIR. Besides, when 9 persons armed with a pistol enter house of a jeweller, one wonders as to why they would run away after snatching just an anklet (as submitted today for the first time, two anklets). There is also no clarity as to why the complaint was lodged after delay of two days.
But as stated in the earlier bail applications, these aspects are yet to be tested through full dress trial. BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.02.2026 17:15:20 Page 3 of 4 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d43 5f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee604 02c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Operative part
Presently, there is no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Accompanying applications stand disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant. GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80 1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 27, 2026/ry pages Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Date:27.02.2026 17:15:20
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 3(5), 61(2), 309(6), 310(2), 311, 317(3); Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 25, 27.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 27 Feb 2026. The bench was GIRISH KATHPALIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.