Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15260 (DEL)

SH KUNAL ALIAS ANNU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN./2389/2026 · 2026-08-07

Madhu Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010270452026 + BAIL APPLN. 2389/2026 SH KUNAL ALIAS ANNU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuuj Aggarwall, Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Vineet Kumar Jain, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP with SI Suneel Kumar, PS South Rohini. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in FIR No. 103/2019, wherein the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 392/394/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station South Rohini. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.03.2019 at about 4:50 a.m., the complainant, Rohit Mishra, was returning home on foot after attending a marriage function. When he reached near Axis Bank ATM, 8B/9B Dividing Road, Sector-3, Rohini, a Santro car stopped near him and three unknown This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:14:44 persons allegedly got down from the vehicle. It is alleged that they assaulted the complainant, snatched his Redmi Y1 mobile phone, and inflicted injuries on him with a sharp-edged weapon before fleeing from the spot. The complainant was shifted to BSA Hospital, where his MLC was prepared showing an incised wound on his left thigh. On the basis of his statement, the present FIR came to be registered. During investigation, the petitioner came to be arrested and, upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted regular bail by the learned Sessions Court. However, subsequently, non-bailable warrants came to be issued against him as he could not appear before the learned Trial Court, as he was in judicial custody in another case. He submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody in the present case since 10.02.2026 and, therefore, he prays to be enlarged on regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the petition and submits that while on bail in the present case, the petitioner committed another offence. He further submits that, as per the antecedent affidavit filed by the petitioner himself, he has 35 criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the Nominal Roll reflects that the petitioner's jail conduct is unsatisfactory. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State has incorrectly stated the number of criminal cases against the petitioner and contends that there are only eight criminal cases against him. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Court cannot ignore the fact that while on bail in the present case, the petitioner came to be involved in another criminal case. The antecedent affidavit filed by the petitioner also reflects his involvement in several This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:14:44 criminal cases. 9. Further, it is not disputed that the petitioner has eight other criminal cases against him. The Nominal Roll also reports his jail conduct to be unsatisfactory. Considering the petitioner's antecedents, his conduct while on bail, and his unsatisfactory jail conduct, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 11. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 7, 2026/JYH/Av This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/08/2026 at 11:14:44