Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./4336/2025 of HONEY KUMAR SHARMA Vs STATE THROUGH SHO PS GOVIND PURI & ANR. on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010886292025 + BAIL APPLN. 4336/2025 HONEY KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Shandok, Mr. Rajendra G. Sahu, Mr. Nikhil Garg and Mr. Gaurav Sahu, Advs. versus STATE THROUGH SHO PS GOVIND PURI & ANR. .....Respondents Through:
$~2
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010886292025
+
BAIL APPLN. 4336/2025
HONEY KUMAR SHARMA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Shandok, Mr.
Rajendra G. Sahu, Mr. Nikhil Garg
and Mr. Gaurav Sahu, Advs.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS GOVIND PURI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Mr. Sukrit, Ms.
Urvashi Sharma, Mr. Vinayak.
Gautam and Mr. Arbaz Khan, Advs.
for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 29.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Learned APP for the State has handed over a Status Report along with the verification report of the medical documents. Let the Status Report be taken on record.
3. Learned APP for the State further submits that though the medical documents have been verified, they do not disclose any medical condition of the Applicant which cannot be treated in jail. He further submits that the Applicant has filed a false Affidavit before this Court, stating that he has no past criminal antecedents, whereas two other criminal cases are stated to be pending against him, i.e., Crime No. 65/2015 under Sections
419/467/468/471/34 IPC (R.C.C. No. 274/2016) and Crime No. 45/2010 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC (R.C.C. No. 302561/2010), registered at Police Station Sitabuldi, Nagpur. It is submitted that on the basis of the said misrepresentation, the Applicant obtained interim protection from this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the Complainant also submits that the Applicant is calling Respondent No. 2 and threatening her to withdraw the present case and, therefore, there is a threat perception from the Applicant. He further submits that the Applicant has violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 825 OF 2026, and, therefore, is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has already been given interim protection by this Court in December 2025, and there was no intention on the part of the Applicant to misrepresent any fact before this Court. He submits that the Applicant is already on bail in the other two criminal cases and, therefore, those cases should not come in the way of consideration of the present anticipatory bail application.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Applicant, upon the same being pointed out, has now admitted that there are two more criminal cases against him, i.e., Crime No. 65/2015 under Sections 419/467/468/471/34 IPC and Crime No. 45/2010 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC.
8. No doubt, he is on bail in those cases, but the fact remains that the Applicant is alleged to have committed the present offence despite having been granted the liberty of bail in the aforesaid cases.
9. Moreover, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, both today as well as on the previous date of hearing, that the Applicant has been regularly calling the complainant and threatening her. Thus, the threat perception expressed by the complainant cannot be ignored.
10. A person seeking discretionary relief should come to the Court with clean hands. However, the Applicant has concealed his prior criminal antecedents. Further, in view of the threat perception expressed by Respondent No. 2, this Court finds no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.
11. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
12. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/b/m