Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3485/2026 of MANISH @ MUNSHI Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 24 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010394902026 + BAIL APPLN. 3485/2026, CRL.M.A. 25943/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25944/2026 MANISH @ MUNSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with
$~61
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010394902026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3485/2026, CRL.M.A. 25943/2026 & CRL.M.A.
25944/2026
MANISH @ MUNSHI
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Vineet Jain, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with IO/SI Vibhu Sharma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
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
%
24.08.2026
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 491/2015 of Police Station Subzi Mandi for offence under 307/34/120B of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he shot at the complainant de facto, who was a prosecution witness in a double murder case. The accused/applicant is stated to be in jail since 02.10.2015.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that for past more than 02 years, the matter before the trial court was being listed for final arguments, but was being repeatedly adjourned. It is also submitted by him that earlier, vide order dated 20.11.2025, a coordinate bench of this Court allowed withdrawal of the earlier bail application and specifically directed the trial court to conclude and pronounce judgment within one month, but the same has not been done till date and rather, about fortnight back, the learned presiding officer of the trial court got transferred and now that court is lying vacant.
4. Learned APP assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Vibhu Sharma accepts notice.
5. As aptly submitted by learned APP that when the trial is already listed for final arguments, a decision on this bail application may have a bearing on merits of the trial.
6. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for accused/applicant seeks permission to withdraw this bail application with the request for certain specific directions since despite order dated 20.11.2025 of the coordinate bench, the trial was not concluded and even final arguments are pending for more than two years.
7. Accordingly, this bail application and accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
8. But in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is directed that in case the trial court is still lying vacant, the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge shall consider to forthwith transfer the trial to some other court of competent jurisdiction, who shall completely dispose of the trial by hearing final arguments and pronouncing judgment within one month from today. In that regard, neither side shall take an adjournment. In case by now the new presiding officer has already taken over the trial court, she/he also shall be bound by this order to hear final arguments and pronounce judgment within one month from today. Further, the Principal District & Sessions Judge shall also obtain report from the erstwhile judicial officers as to why despite order dated 20.11.2025, the judgment was not pronounced within the time as directed and that report also shall be furnished by the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge on or before 30.09.2026 before this Court.
9. In order to ensure timely compliance, copy of this order shall be submitted before the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge by the SHO, PS Subji Mandi tomorrow itself.
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J AUGUST 24, 2026/ry