[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Suphiyan Ali vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 21 January, 2026
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 21.01.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 260/2026, CRL.M.A. 2134/2026, 2135/2026 &
2136/2026
SUPHIYAN ALI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Mr. Manoj
Kumar and Mr. Subhakar Tiwari,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Narender Singh, PS CR Park.
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) BNS and Section 25/27 Arms Act.
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP
for State assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh.
BAIL APPLICATION 260/2026 Page 1 of 4 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,
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:03:41 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:21.01.2026
18:09:13
3. Broadly speaking, the complainant de facto, who is engaged in
business of jewellery, was allegedly robbed at his home by 3-4 persons
carrying a toy gun. In the process they allegedly snatched anklet of his wife
and fled away. The FIR narrates the incident that on 28.11.2024 at about
08:30 pm when the complainant de facto was present at his home, on
hearing some commotion from the side of the kitchen, he went there and
found his servant on opening the door. The said servant Harish had been
caught hold of by 3-4 persons and one of them was carrying a pistol (which
turned out to be a toy gun). Those intruders rushed inside the home with the
intention to commit robbery and they also threatened wife of the
complainant de facto who was standing behind him. The intruders allegedly
threatened wife of the complainant de facto to hand over the entire money
and gold, otherwise they would kill her. Thereafter, one of the robbers hit on
head of the complainant de facto and another robber snatched out anklet
from foot of wife of the complainant de facto and they ran away.
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the manner in
which the incident had been alleged is completely unbelievable insofar as it
cannot be believed that 3-4 persons armed with pistol would enter house of a
jeweller and leave after taking only one anklet, that too, after snatching out
the same from foot of wife of the complainant de facto. It is also pointed out
that there is a delay of two days in even lodging the complaint and co-
accused Salim, Arman Ali and Laiq Ahamad have already been granted bail.
Learned counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through Annexure P-7,
which is a copy of the bail order dated 07.01.2026 passed by me, pointing
BAIL APPLICATION 260/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:03:31 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:21.01.2026
18:09:13
out the observation that the CCTV footage presents a completely distinct
picture of the incident.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for State contends that role of the
present accused/applicant is different from role of Laiq Ahamad in the sense
that the latter was only keeping a watch outside the house while the
accused/applicant was carrying a toy gun.
6. The fact remains that as described in order dated 07.01.2026 quoted
above, there is serious doubt about truthfulness of contents of the FIR in the
light of the CCTV footage. There is also an unexplained delay of two days
in lodging the complaint. It also remains a mystery as to why so many
persons, some of whom are armed would enter the house of a jeweller and
flee away after snatching out anklet from foot of his wife and nothing else.
The manner in which the incident is depicted in the CCTV footage has been
described in order dated 07.01.2026 whereby the accused Laiq Ahamad was
granted bail.
7. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
further deprive liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail
application is allowed and 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 Trial Court.
8. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
BAIL APPLICATION 260/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.01.21 18:03:21 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:21.01.2026
18:09:13
9. Of course, nothing observed in this order shall be read to the prejudice
of either side at the final stage of the trial.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
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
Date: 2026.01.21 18:03:08 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 21, 2026/as
BAIL APPLICATION 260/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages
