Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3145/2026 of JAMIR AHMED Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 9 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010357032026 + BAIL APPLN. 3145/2026 JAMIR AHMED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Mr. Nishant Madan, Mr. Vishal Chillar, Ms. Nitika Pauchooli, Mr. Ankur Rai, Mr. Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Amritanshu Rai, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
$~12
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010357032026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3145/2026
JAMIR AHMED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Mr. Nishant Madan,
Mr.
Vishal
Chillar,
Ms.
Nitika
Pauchooli,
Mr.
Ankur
Rai,
Mr.
Abhishek Sharma and Mr. Amritanshu
Rai, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP.
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
% 09.09.2026
1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), seeking grant of regular bail on behalf of the applicant in connection with FIR No. 198/2026 registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi, for offences under Sections 117(2), 3(5), and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 18 hours in the registration of the FIR and that no role has been attributed to the present petitioner in the FIR. It is further submitted that the allegations of sexual assault surfaced subsequently in the statement recorded under Section
183 of the BNSS.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State, as well as learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned in the FIR, wherein he is also referred to by the name of “Titu”. It is further submitted that the petitioner pulled the complainant by her hair and threw her out of the shop, which is clearly mentioned in the FIR.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused persons, beat the husband of the petitioner, due to which he lost vision in his left eye, and therefore, Section 117(2) of the BNSS has been invoked.
6. This court has heard both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. This court is of the view that not only is the name of the petitioner mentioned in the FIR, but a specific role has been attributed to him: that he pulled the complainant by her hair and threw her out of the shop, and thereafter the accused person started beating the husband of the complainant, which resulted in the loss of vision of the person.
8. In view of the specific role attributed to the petitioner, wherein the accused pulled the hair of the complainant, threw her out of the shop, and subsequently beat the husband of the complainant, which resulted in permanent loss of vision in his left eye, no ground is made out for grant of regular bail at this stage.
9. The application is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
10. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
11. It is clarified that nothing contained in the present order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or shall in any manner influence the learned Trial Court while considering the matter on its merits.
12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/JYH/yt