[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mehboob Hassan vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 April, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.04.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2897/2026
MEHBOOB HASSAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Osama Suhail, Mr. Samma
Suhail, Ms. Antara Chaudhary and
Ms. Sanya, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with IO/Inspector Sonu Ram.
Mr. Shakil Sheikh, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR
No.422/2025 of PS Shaheen Bagh for offence under Section
287/105/106(1)/326(g) of BNS.
2. The status report has not been filed on behalf of State, which conveys
an impression that the Investigating Officer is not serious in opposing this
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
Digitally Signed 1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.16 06:12:31 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.04.2026
18:18:17
anticipatory bail application. However, I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by Investigating
Officer/Inspector Sonu Ram.
3. Broadly speaking, prosecution allegation is that the accused/applicant
deliberately set a building afire, in which one of the occupants died while
the remaining escaped. According to prosecution, one of the floors of that
building was occupied by the son of the accused/applicant and his family,
who had estranged relations with the accused/applicant because he got
married against wishes of the accused/applicant. The accused/applicant is
sought to be connected with the alleged incident solely on the basis of
CCTV footage of the area, in which footage son of the accused/applicant
identified the accused/applicant solely on the basis of gait.
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the
accused/applicant is embroiled in multiple litigations with his brother arising
out of property disputes and son of the accused/applicant is siding with
brother of the accused/applicant. It is further submitted by learned counsel
for accused/applicant that on account of those multiple disputes, some of
which are criminal cases as well, brother and son of the accused/applicant
have been getting him implicated in one or the other false case. It is further
submitted that one of such cases was a murder case in which ultimately the
accused/applicant got acquitted. Further, it is contended that the
accused/applicant had no reason to set afire the entire building, just because
he had estranged relations with his son and daughter-in-law. Lastly, as per
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 2 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.16 06:12:21 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.04.2026
18:18:17
learned counsel, the accused/applicant joined investigation subsequent to
receipt of notice, which was issued by the Investigating Officer in response
to a letter written by the accused/applicant to be called for investigation.
5. Learned APP for State accompanied with Investigating Officer
submits that the identity of the accused/applicant is established on the basis
of series of CCTV footages depicting his movement from his sister's house
at 02:38am to his own house at 02:42am, from where he came out at
04:03am and reached near the spot on his scooty at 04:21am and ultimately
at 04:33am, he set the building afire on the ill fated morning. The
accused/applicant is also identified on the basis of his clothes and colour of
the scooty, as per learned APP. It is contended that the accused/applicant
does not deserve anticipatory bail, because his custodial interrogation is
required to find out what inflammable substance he took out from his pocket
to set the building afire.
6. As regards to the above mentioned trail of the alleged movement of
the accused/applicant depicted in different CCTV footages, the Investigating
Officer tried to play the alleged footages in the courtroom for more than half
an hour, but could not succeed in showing any material as mentioned above.
At the most, what is visible in the CCTV footage of 04:33am is a person
wearing white salwar kameez and some jacket, but no face is visible. The
registration number of the scooty or even colour thereof is not visible.
Rather, according to the Investigating Officer, at 04:03am when the
accused/applicant came out of his house, he was wearing a helmet and his
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 3 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.16 06:12:12 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.04.2026
18:18:17
face was not visible. The area depicted in that CCTV footage is a lane with
houses on both sides. So ultimately, the only basis on which the
investigation connects the accused/applicant with the alleged incident is his
gait.
7. Further, it would be also significant to note that the CCTV footage of
the burning building depicts that first a car parked inside the building caught
afire. But for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the said
car has not been seized in order to ascertain the cause and genesis of fire.
Rather, from the spot, no article was lifted by the Investigating Officer in
order to ascertain the cause and genesis of the fire. On this aspect, the
Investigating Officer submits that it is the FSL team which had picked some
articles and exhibited by them as Ex.1 to Ex.6 and those articles were
handed over to him. The seizure memo of those articles names the FSL
expert but does not bear signatures of the said expert.
8. I am conscious that while considering the bail applications, such
minute appreciation of material on record must be avoided. But in the
present case, the discussion is necessitated in view of the peculiar stand of
the investigation machinery, which wants to connect the accused/applicant
with the alleged offence merely on the basis of gait identified by son and
brother of the accused/applicant who are embroiled in multiple litigations
with the accused/applicant. Of course, on these aspects, the trial court shall
take an independent view on the basis of evidence adduced during trial. The
purpose of the above discussion is to decide as to whether there is sufficient
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 4 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.16 06:12:02 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.04.2026
18:18:17
material collected during investigation, on the basis whereof liberty of the
accused/applicant be curtailed.
9. Then comes the question of custodial interrogation. Of course, where
the Investigating Officer wants opportunity to carry out custodial
interrogation, the court should consider that request. But that is provided the
request sounds genuine and not only as a ploy to get the anticipatory bail
application dismissed. As mentioned above, it is the accused/applicant who
had to write a letter to the Investigating Officer, requesting him to be called
for interrogation, after which the Investigating Officer sent the notice and
the accused/applicant duly joined investigation. Further, the failure on the
part of investigation machinery to file even status report despite opportunity
granted on 29.01.2026 would speak volumes against the genuineness of the
request. Most importantly, as discussed above, prima facie at present there is
no material to connect the accused/applicant with the alleged occurrence, so
even if custodial interrogation is allowed for recovery of the alleged
inflammable substance and clothes, one wonders if correct picture would
come out of that exercise.
10. Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no
reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.
11. The present anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed
that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail,
subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 5 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac
ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.16 06:11:52 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:16.04.2026
18:18:17
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
Accompanying application stands disposed of.
12. The accused/applicant shall join investigation as and when directed in
writing by the Investigating Officer.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.16 06:11:32 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 16, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 373/2026 Page 6 of 6 pages
