BAIL APPLN./3303/2026 of SOHAN LAL Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 13 August 2026

O R D E R

%

13.08.2026

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. 22/2021 dated 09.01.2021, registered at Police Station Nand Nagari, Delhi, under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”].

2. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. He had earlier approached this Court seeking regular bail by way of BAIL APPLN. 3319/2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.04.2023, with the following order: “Learned counsel for applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present application with liberty to move bail application before the learned Trial Court after the statement of the mother of the deceased is recorded.

The present bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.”

3. I am informed that, although the evidence of the mother of the deceased commenced on 01.03.2023, the same is still ongoing. Consequently, the applicant has not been able to avail of the liberty granted by this Court and approach the learned Trial Court afresh.

4. Although this fact is not stated in the bail application, Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant thereafter moved a bail application before the learned Trial Court; however, the same was withdrawn in view of the restriction contained in the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by this Court.

5. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, that the statement of the mother of the deceased has not yet been fully recorded despite the passage of considerable time, on account of various factors, including the unavailability of the learned Trial Judge and, on certain occasions, the witness herself.

6. The mother of the deceased, who is also the complainant in the present case, has now been summoned for 02.09.2026. I am informed that her examination-in-chief is nearing completion.

7. In view of the order dated 17.04.2023, Mr. Mehra does not press the present application for bail at this stage. He, however, seeks a direction for expeditious recording of the statement of the complainant. He further states that, after conclusion of the examination-in-chief, he will require maximum of three hours for cross-examination.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Trial Court is requested to endeavour to conclude the testimony of the complainant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

9. The applicant shall be at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court afresh after the statement of the complainant is recorded. He shall also be at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court in the event there is an inordinate delay in recording the complainant’s statement for reasons not attributable to the applicant.

10. The bail application, alongwith any pending applications, is dismissed as withdrawn, in terms of the aforesaid observations.

11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 13, 2026 ‘B’/SD/