Disposed¶17

Chand Malik v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC18 Nov 2025BAIL APPLN./3164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court bail application withdrawal; permission to withdraw bail application; direction to Trial Court to complete prosecution evidence within one year; time-bound trial directions; delay due to non-availability of FSL report and case property; priority letters by ASJ; supplementary chargesheet January 2025; case based on two eye-witnesses, not circumstantial evidence; Chand Malik v. State of NCT of Delhi; PS Adarsh Nagar; Justice Neena Bansal Krishna; order dated 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the Applicant to withdraw the Bail Application, with a direction to the learned Trial Court to make an endeavour to complete the prosecution evidence, preferably within one year; copy of the Order to be sent to the learned Trial Court. ¶17

Chand Malik Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3164/2025

¶4

CHAND MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav and Mr. Sauraj Yadav, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Ranbir Singh, PS Adarsh Nagar

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R

¶9

% 18.11.2025

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks permission to withdraw the Bail Application. However, submits that some directions be given for recording of evidence in a time bound manner.

¶11

Learned Prosecutor for the State submits that the delay in completing the evidence was on account non-availability of FSL and the case property for which, several priority letters had been sent by the learned ASJ. It is further submitted that the FSL Report and case property had been submitted vide supplementary Chargesheet in January, 2025. The steps are now being taken to expedite the recording of evidence.

¶12

It is further submitted that this case is not based on circumstantial evidence, but on the statement of two eye-witnesses.

¶13

In view of the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant, he is permitted to withdraw the present Bail Application with direction to the learned Trial Court to make an endeavour to complete the Prosecution

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 20/11/2025 at 11:22:34

¶16

evidence, preferably, within one year.

¶17

The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

Copy of this Order be sent to the learned Trial Court.

¶19

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶20

NOVEMBER 18, 2025 N

¶21

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 20/11/2025 at 11:22:34

Chand Malik v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Malik v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Javed & Ors. Vs the State (Gnctd) & Ors.

Akhlaq Ahmed & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Shakuntala Lakra & Anr. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manoj Sharma Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Mrs Taran Ojha @ Tarang Ojha Vs Mr Arun Malhrotra and Anr.

Sanjay Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.