Allowed

Rahul Bansal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC9 Oct 2025BAIL APPLN./3474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail applications filed by Rahul Bansal, Dilip Kumar, and Ranjeet Kumar Basor in an FIR alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 involving assault and breach of trust, subject to conditions, with victim compliance noted.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications were allowed; applicants directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 along with a surety of ₹20,000 for each applicant, subject to specified conditions inclu

Rahul Bansal Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~4 to 6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27145/2025 RAHUL BANSAL .....Applicant Through: Mr. Omkar Sharma, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Deepak, Mr. Sujoy Nandi, Ms. Rushali Nandi, Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Ms. Shubhshree Pandey, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ms. Manju Lata Singh, Advs.

¶4

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. SI Sachin, PS Karol Bagh.

¶5

BAIL APPLN. 3479/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27196/2025 DILIP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Omkar Sharma, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Deepak, Mr. Sujoy Nandi, Ms. Rushali Nandi, Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Ms. Shubhshree Pandey, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ms. Manju Lata Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. SI Sachin, PS Karol Bagh. + BAIL APPLN. 3499/2025 & CRL.M.A. 27358/2025 RANJEET KUMAR BASOR .....Applicant

¶8

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025

¶9

Page 1 of 5

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 10/10/2025 at 14:42:22

¶12

Through: Mr. Omkar Sharma, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Deepak, Mr. Sujoy Nandi, Ms. Rushali Nandi, Mr. Sachin Chaudhary, Ms. Shubhshree Pandey, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh & Ms. Manju Lata Singh, Advs.

¶13

versus

¶14

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State. SI Sachin, PS Karol Bagh.

¶15

CORAM:

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.10.2025

¶17

The present bail applications are filed by the applicants seeking regular bail in FIR No. 875/2024 dated 03.10.2024, registered at Police Station Karol Bagh, for offence under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNS ’).

¶18

It is alleged that the complainant had given a loan of ₹2,000/- to the applicant Rahul, however, the said accused refused to return the amount. Allegedly, on 02.10.2024, when the complainant approached the applicant Rahul seeking refund of the loaned amount, the applicant Rahul attacked the complainant with a knife. It is alleged that the applicant Rahul along with his relatives, including the other applicants– Dilip and Ranjeet, also gave beatings to the complainant. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case for the offences under Sections 109(1)/3(5)/238(b) of the BNS.

¶19

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 10/10/2025 at 14:42:22

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants as well as the complainant are known to each other. He submits that a minor altercation took place due to certain provocation.

¶24

He submits that the parties are neighbours and with the intervention of family friends and relatives, the dispute has been settled and the complainant is not objecting to the applicants being released on bail. 5. He further submits that the applicants will also compensate the victim monetarily for the injuries caused and a sum of ₹50,000/- will be given by the applicants to the complainant within four weeks of their release.

¶25

He submits that the applicants belong to the poor strata of society and have been languishing in jail for more than ten months.

¶26

Although the allegations appear to be serious in nature, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the complainant is not objecting to the applicants being released on bail. The complainant, who is present in the Court, states that he has since forgiven the applicants. He submits that the applicants are known to him and he has no objection if they are released on bail.

¶27

At this stage, there appears to be no apprehension that the applicants will threaten the complainant on their release. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the applicants have spent a considerable amount of time in custody and the investigation is already complete, which led to filing of the chargesheet. 10. The object of jail is to secure the appearance of the accused during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor

¶28

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 10/10/2025 at 14:42:22

¶32

preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment.

¶33

The applicants are stated to have clean antecedents.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the applicants are directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹20,000/- with one surety of the like amount by each applicant, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the following conditions:

¶35

a. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

¶36

b. The applicants shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court;

¶37

c. The applicants shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;

¶38

d. The applicants shall provide the address where they would be residing after their release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

¶39

e. The applicants shall, upon their release, give their mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep their mobile phone switched on at all times;

¶40

f. The applicants shall, upon their release, pay a sum of ₹50,000/- to the complainant within a

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 10/10/2025 at 14:42:22

¶45

period of four weeks.

¶46

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the applicants, it would be open to the respondent to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶47

It is clarified that the observations made in the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶48

The bail applications are allowed in the aforementioned terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶49

A copy of this order be placed in all the matters.

¶50

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶51

OCTOBER 9, 2025 “SK”

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

BAIL APPLN. 3474/2025

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

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 10/10/2025 at 14:42:22

Rahul Bansal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Bansal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zainab Ahmad @ Anne Marie Mendy Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

State NCT of Delhi Vs J Ravi

Kamal Kumar Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Sanjay Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

State Vs Mohinuddin

Rakesh Kumar Alias Raka Vs State of NCT of Delhi