Dismissed¶15

Shah Alam v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./1685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application dismissed; Delhi High Court; Justice Manoj Jain; 07.07.2026; BAIL APPLN. 1685/2026; FIR No. 365/2022; Police Station Seemapuri; Sections 376/506 IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act 2012; custody since 19.04.2022; incarceration more than four years; trial over; defence evidence stage; prosecutrix supported prosecution case; no compelling reason for bail; Trial Court directed to dispose preferably within two months of conclusion of defence evidence.

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail refused. ¶15

Shah Alam Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1685/2026 SHAH ALAM .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar with Mr. Dhirendra

¶5

Bist, Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP with SI Anil

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 07.07.2026

¶12

Applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No. 365/2022 registered at Police Station Seemapuri, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376/506 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 .

¶13

It is contended that applicant is in custody since 19.04.2022 and his incarceration period is more than four years.

¶14

Learned APP for State, however, informs that the trial is already over and the case is now listed for recording of defence evidence. He submits that in such a peculiar situation when the case is, virtually, at its last leg, no indulgence should be given, particularly, keeping in mind the fact that the prosecutrix has fully supported the case.

¶15

Keeping in mind the above, this Court also does not find any compelling reason to enlarge the applicant on bail and the application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Since the matter is already at the stage of defence evidence, the learned Trial Court is requested to give requisite priority to the abovesaid matter and

¶17

BAIL APPLN. 1685/2026 1

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:33

¶20

to try to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months of conclusion of recording of defence evidence.

¶21

A copy of this Order be immediately sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

¶22

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶23

JULY 7, 2026/ sw/sy

¶24

BAIL APPLN. 1685/2026 2

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:33

Shah Alam v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Alam v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritika & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dimpy Chugh Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Rohit & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs State-Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Balveer Singh and Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vikrant @ Vikrant Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.