[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rohit vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 27 February, 2026
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 866/2026, CRL.M.A. 6642/2026, 6643/2026 &
6644/2026
ROHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Mr. Manoj
Kumar and Mr. Ajay Kumar
Srivastav, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Narender.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 357/2024 of
PS Chitranjan Park for offence under Section 309(6)/310(2)/311/317
(3)/61(2)/3(5) of BNS and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP
for State assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh.
BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f
b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c
bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.27 17:02:43 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
17:15:20
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant seeks parity with the bail
granted to the co-accused persons by this court by way of orders annexed as
Annexure P-7, P-8 and P-10.
4. Learned APP opposes the bail application, presenting submissions on
the instructions of the IO, which submissions are contrary to or not raised in
the case of bail applications of the remaining accused persons.
5. Broadly speaking, according to the prosecution case, the
accused/applicant and his co-accused persons forcibly entered house of the
complainant de facto and committed robbery. The total number of accused
persons was stated to be 3-4 earlier during the hearing of bail application of
co-accused Laiq Ahmad, but today it is stated by the IO that the total
number of accused persons were 10. Further, according to prosecution the
complainant de facto is engaged in the business of jewellery. But the alleged
robbery involved snatching of only one anklet from foot of wife of the
complainant de facto.
6. As per the FIR, which was registered on a complaint filed two days
after the alleged incident, on 28.11.2024 at about 08:30pm, when after
hearing some commotion from the side of kitchen the complainant de facto
went there, he found his servant Harish had been caught hold of by 3-4
persons, one of whom was carrying a pistol and those intruders threatened
his wife to hand over the entire money and gold otherwise she would be
killed and thereafter, one of those intruders hit on the head of the
BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48
35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2
Date: 2026.02.27 17:02:56 -08'00'
complainant de facto while another intruder snatched out anklet from foot of
the wife of the complainant de facto and all of them ran away.
7. As recorded in the bail orders of the co-accused persons, the CCTV
footages shown during arguments presented completely different pictures in
the sense that the same depicted that the complainant de facto was sitting on
ground and was attacked by few assailants with muffled faces. In the
initially shown CCTV footage pertaining to the bail application of accused
Laiq Ahmad, there was no footage depicting wife of the complainant de
facto or the anklet being snatched. Subsequently, in the bail application of
accused Suphiyan Ali, the CCTV footage shown was different. Today,
another CCTV footage is shown by the IO, depicting a scuffle in the house,
involving 3-4 persons and it is stated by the IO that the same depicts
snatching of anklets from both feet of wife of the complainant de facto.
8. It is not just the three apparently distinct CCTV footages, it is also
that the same do not depict the incident as narrated in the FIR. Besides,
when 9 persons armed with a pistol enter house of a jeweller, one wonders
as to why they would run away after snatching just an anklet (as submitted
today for the first time, two anklets). There is also no clarity as to why the
complaint was lodged after delay of two days.
9. But as stated in the earlier bail applications, these aspects are yet to be
tested through full dress trial.
BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d43
5f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee604
Date: 2026.02.27 17:03:10 -08'00'
10. Presently, there is no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicant.
Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is
directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the learned trial court. Accompanying applications stand disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being
conveyed to the accused/applicant.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.27 17:03:22 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 27, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 866/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages
