Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3772/2026 of SUNNY ALIES LALU Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 9 September 2026
3772/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~108 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010426672026 + BAIL APPLN. 3772/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27946/2026 SUNNY ALIES LALU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Mr. Mayank Agarwal, Mr. Rakesh Singh, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT.
$~108
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010426672026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3772/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27946/2026
SUNNY ALIES LALU
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Mr.
Mayank Agarwal, Mr. Rakesh
Singh,
Mr.
Ravi
Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
SI Yashveer Sharma, Insp. Sachin
Kumar.
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
%
09.09.2026
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 691/2023 dated 09.11.2023, registered at Police Station Govindpuri, for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC’]. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet has been filed, whereupon charges under Sections 307/324/341 of IPC have been added.
2. The applicant’s previous application for bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, inter alia, noting that the prosecution evidence was yet to commence, and that the complainant/eye-witnesses, alongwith the other material witnesses, were yet to be examined.
3. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that PW-1 has since been partly examined but has not been appearing regularly before the learned Sessions Court, while the complainant is yet to be examined, resulting in an inordinate delay in the progress of the trial. Mr. Singh, therefore, submits that the applicant is entitled to bail on account of the delay in progress of the trial.
4. It is evident from the aforesaid that the applicant last approached the learned Sessions Court for bail approximately eleven months ago and it is his contention that, since then, the trial has not progressed substantially.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, particularly the contention regarding delay in the trial on account of the alleged non- appearance of PW-1 and the complainant, I am of the view that the applicant may approach the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, particularly if the recording of evidence of the complainant and the other material witnesses is further inordinately delayed.
6. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assures the Court that the prosecution shall endeavour to expedite the recording of evidence and ensure expeditious progress of the trial.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present application, along with the pending application, is disposed of at this stage with the aforesaid observations.
8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or on any application that may be filed by the applicant hereafter, which shall be considered by the appropriate Court on its own merits, in accordance with law. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 ‘B’/SD/