Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./994/2026 of ZAHID HASAN Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 20 August 2026
994/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010091582026 + BAIL APPLN. 994/2026, CRL.M.A. 14421-22/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15016-17/2026 ZAHID HASAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Prasanna, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Avantika Shankar, Ms. Amrita
$~12
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010091582026
+
BAIL APPLN. 994/2026, CRL.M.A. 14421-22/2026 & CRL.M.A.
15016-17/2026
ZAHID HASAN
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Kanhaiya
Singhal,
Mr.
Prasanna, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms.
Avantika
Shankar,
Ms.
Amrita
Kumari, Ms.Isha Singh, Advocates
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP
Insp Abhijit Kumar, PS Seelampur
Mr. Parvez Ahmad,Advocate
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
% 20.08.2026
1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 337/2022, dated 23.07.2022, registered at Police Station Seelampur, Delhi, under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. In the course of arguments, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the chargesheet, which was filed in October 2022, which records that FSL opinion has been sought with regard to the authenticity of the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, after which investigation was to take place with regard to the opinion on the weapon of the offence, and matching of the CCTV footages with the images of the accused. The prosecution indicated that a supplementary chargesheet will be filed thereafter.
3. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that the FSL report with regard to the authenticity of the CCTV footage and comparison of the images of the accused persons remains pending.
4. Mr. Singhal points out that it is now almost four years since the chargesheet was filed. After some arguments, instead of pressing the bail application at this stage, Mr. Singhal seeks directions for expedition of the FSL report and filing of the supplementary chargesheet.
5. It is clear from the above that the matter has been pending for a relatively long time for this purpose. The prosecution is therefore directed to pursue with the FSL for expeditious submission of the FSL report, which should be placed before the Trial Court, by way of a supplementary chargesheet, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.
6. If so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Sessions Court afresh after filing of the supplementary chargesheet. He shall also be at liberty to approach the Sessions Court in the event there is an inordinate delay in submission of the FSL report/filing of supplementary chargesheet.
7. In the event such an application is made, the Sessions Court may consider the same in accordance with law.
8. The bail application, alongwith the pending applications, are disposed of in these terms.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 20, 2026 Tg/AD/