Dismissed¶31

Gulab v. State

Delhi HC11 Mar 2026BAIL APPLN./1366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail dismissed; High Court of Delhi; Girish Kathpalia; 11.03.2026; BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024; CRL.M.(BAIL) 653/2024; FIR No. 400/2020 PS Shahbad Dairy; Section 302/307/34 IPC; 25/27/54/59 Arms Act; murder; attempt to murder; country made pistol; knife; Abhishek shot dead; injured eyewitness; slow pace of trial ground rejected; trial court ordersheets examined; multiple applications including transfer of jail; interim bail application dismissed; custody five and half years; gravity of offence; parity with co-accused Ajay; bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On examining the ordersheets of the learned trial court, the Court was unable to agree with the submission that the trial was proceeding at a slow pace; the ordersheets did not indicate that the trial was not being diligently conducted. ¶24

Gulab Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant Gulab should be released on regular bail during the pendency of trial in FIR No. 400/2020 (PS Shahbad Dairy). +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the circumstances, especially the gravity of the offence in which one person was shot dead and the other was shot at, the Court found it not a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the bail application together with the accompanying application.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

¶24

Key takeaways

Contrary to the slow-trial plea, the record showed that the accused/applicant had flooded the trial court with multiple applications, including an application for transfer of jail, undermining the claimed lack of diligence in the trial.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused – gravity of offence outweighs plea of slow trial (Delhi HC, oral judgment dt. 11.03.2026): Girish Kathpalia, J. dismissed the regular bail application of Gulab, accused in FIR No. 400/2020, PS Shahbad Dairy (Section 302/307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act), in custody for the past five and half years. Counsel had pleaded slow pace of trial (showing trial-court ordersheets) and parity with co-accused Ajay, who exhorted the remaining two accused persons and was already on bail. Examining the ordersheets, the Court rejected the slow-trial plea, finding the trial diligently conducted and noting that the applicant himself flooded the trial court with multiple applications (including one for transfer of jail) and even filed an interim bail application before the trial court during the pendency of the present application, which was dismissed after hearing. Considering especially the gravity of the offence – one person shot dead and another shot at – the Court held it not a fit case to grant bail and dismissed BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024 along with CRL.M.(BAIL) 653/2024, directing a copy of the order to be sent to the Jail Superintendent for conveyance to the applicant.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 11.03.2026

¶4

BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 653/2024 GULAB .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Mr. Karan Ahuja and Mr. Saurabh Agarwal, Advocates.

¶5

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with Inspector Rakesh Kumar. Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, DHCLSC with Mr. Kuldeep Kasana and Mr. Ahmad Kamaal, Advocates for complainant.

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶7

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶8

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 400/2020 of PS Shahbad Dairy for offence under Section 302/307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

¶9

In the first call today, none appeared for accused/applicant so the matter was passed over keeping in mind its old pendency. This matter was heard for the first time on 23.04.2024 by the predecessor bench and thereafter, it remained pending before different benches. Finally, along with 179 similar old pending bail applications, it was transferred to this bench

¶10

BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024

¶11

Page 1 of 4 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60 KATHPALIA 402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.11 17:26:32 -07'00'

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:1 1.03.2026 17:36:47

¶14

and today is the first hearing before me.

¶15

In this second call, I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Rakesh Kumar. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto.

¶16

Broadly speaking, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of injured, who stated that on the ill fated night, at about 11:50 pm, the accused/applicant and co-accused Amit @ Mitta apprehended Abhishek, cousin of the injured complainant de facto . The accused/applicant was carrying a country made pistol while Amit was carrying a knife. In the presence of the injured, the accused/applicant fired a shot at Abhishek and co-accused Amit @ Mitta inflicted knife blows. When the injured tried to save himself by running away, the accused/applicant fired a shot which hit his shoulder. On being taken to hospital, Abhishek was declared dead. The injured complainant de facto was administered medical treatment in the hospital.

¶17

In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that since trial is going on slow pace, he deserves to be released on bail. It is also contended that co-accused Ajay, who exhorted the remaining two accused persons, has been granted bail, so the accused/applicant deserves same relief. Learned counsel for accused/applicant has also shown me copies of the ordersheets of the trial court in support of his contention of slow trial. It is submitted by learned counsel that the accused/applicant is in

¶18

BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024

¶19

Page 2 of 4 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee604 KATHPALIA 02c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.11 17:26:52 -07'00'

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:1 1.03.2026 17:36:47

¶22

jail for past five and half years.

¶23

On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for complainant de facto strongly oppose the bail application in view of severity of offence and apprehension that if released on bail, the accused/applicant would threaten the eyewitness/injured who is yet to be examined in trial. As regards the time so far spent by the accused/applicant in jail, it is submitted that the offence alleged against him is punishable with death. Learned APP has also referred to the Nominal Rolls reflecting serious charges against the accused/applicant in jail.

¶24

As regards the contention of slow pace trial, having examined the ordersheets of the learned trial court, I am unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for accused/applicant. Rather, it appears that the accused/applicant flooded the trial court with multiple applications including application for transfer of jail. Not only this, despite pendency of the present bail application, the accused/applicant filed an interim bail application also before the trial court, which was dismissed after hearing. From ordersheets of the trial court, it does not appear that trial is not being diligently conducted.

¶25

Apart from delay in trial, no other ground to seek bail has been raised.

¶26

Considering the above circumstances, especially gravity of offence where one person was shot dead and the other was shot at, I do not find it a

¶27

BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024

¶28

Page 3 of 4 pages Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee6040 KATHPALIA 2c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.11 17:27:08 -07'00'

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:1 1.03.2026 17:36:47

¶31

fit case to grant bail. Therefore, the bail application and the accompanying application are dismissed.

¶32

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.

¶33

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶34

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8 01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.03.11 17:27:20 -07'00'

¶35

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶36

MARCH 11, 2026/ dr

¶37

BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024

¶38

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:1 1.03.2026 17:36:47

Gulab v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs State of Gnct of Delhi

Shehzad @Karo Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Rohit Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Rohit@Mohit@Sniper (in Jc) Vs the State(Nct of Delhi) through SHO

Anil Kumar Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Saleem Khan Vs State (Nct of Delhi )