Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3357/2026 of SHAIDULL @ HABIBULL @ KOCHI Vs STATE on 16 September 2026
3357/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010380422026 + BAIL APPLN. 3357/2026 SHAIDULL @ HABIBULL @ KOCHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Advocate. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. SI Ankit, P.S. Adarsh Nagar.
$~5
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010380422026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3357/2026
SHAIDULL @ HABIBULL @ KOCHI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Advocate.
versus
STATE
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. SI
Ankit, P.S. Adarsh Nagar.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
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
%
16.09.2026
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 662/2025, dated 10.08.2025, registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District North-West, Delhi, under Section 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Chahar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Mr. Srivastava has handed over a status report, which is taken on record.
4. The petitioner’s last application for bail before this Court [BAIL APPLN. 896/2026] was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated
06.04.2026, with the following observations: “3. At the very outset, Mr. Chauhan submits that the complainant's evidence is yet to be recorded. He states that the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence tomorrow, i.e. 07.04.2026, and the complainant has been summoned. The complainant, who is present in person, confirms this position.
4. In view thereof, Mr. Vishal Raj Sehijpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this application, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to move the Sessions Court after recording of the evidence of the complainant.”
5. Mr. Chahar submits that, despite the aforesaid order, the evidence of the complainant has not yet been recorded.
6. Mr. Srivastava submits that, in the meanwhile, proceedings were initiated for declaring one of the co-accused as a proclaimed offender. However, the said proceedings have been concluded on 18.08.2026, and the case is now fixed for evidence of the complainant and other witnesses on 30.09.2026.
7. In these circumstances, Mr. Chahar does not press this bail application at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Sessions Court after recording of the evidence of the complainant. However, he seeks a direction that the evidence be recorded expeditiously.
8. The Sessions Court is requested to record the evidence, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with its own Board and the age of matters pending before it. Mr. Srivastava assures the Court that the prosecution will not seek unnecessary adjournments, and will cooperate in this endeavour.
9. The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the above.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comment on the merits of the case, which may be considered by the Sessions Court in accordance with law, and all rights and contentions of the parties in any future application are left open. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 ‘B’/KA/