Rajveer Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1692/2026

¶4

RAJVEER SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hiran Sharma, Mr. Vimal Tyagi, Mr. Atin Chadha, Mr. Munisha Chadha, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with Insp. Amit. Mr. Moksh Kataria, Ms. Muskan R., Advocates for complainant (through VC).

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 21.05.2026

¶11

Applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 227/2024 dated 08.07.2024, registered at Police Station Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi, for commission of offences under Sections 80(2)/85/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC).

¶12

The applicant is father-in-law of the deceased victim and is in judicial custody since 09.09.2024. 3. Learned Senior counsel for applicant submits that all the material public witnesses i.e. relatives of the deceased victim have already been examined and since the prosecution relies on statements of 27 prosecution witnesses, there is no likelihood of trial getting completed in the future as only 08 witnesses have been examined so far. It is also submitted that there were

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 1692/2026 1

¶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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:17

¶16

similar allegations against the mother-in- law of the deceased, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel for applicant submits that the mother-in-law of the deceased is rather taking care of the child of the deceased who is now around two years of age. 5. The applicant has, reportedly, served as Warrant Officer in Indian Air Force and has superannuated very recently.

¶18

As per the bare allegations, marriage between the deceased victim and accused Aujal Dalal took place on 15.11.2021 and as per the prosecution’s story, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 06.07.2024. As per the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, the post-mortem examination does not reveal any external injury or any ante-mortem injury.

¶19

According to learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, there was never any kind of torture or harassment at her matrimonial home and the deceased rather had some issues with her own mother. He also submits that prior to the unfortunate suicide in question, there was never any complaint from the side of the deceased regarding any harassment related to dowry. He states that even as per the transcript of voice call recordings which took place between the deceased and her mother, there is no whisper about any demand of dowry or harassment qua the applicant herein.

¶20

He submits that since the material public witnesses have already been examined, the incarceration based on generic and unsubstantiated allegations, would be travesty of justice.

¶21

All such contentions have been refuted by the learned APP for the State as well as by the learned counsel for the victim family. They contend that all

¶22

BAIL APPLN. 1692/2026 2

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:17

¶25

the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and keeping in mind the gravity of the matter, the applicant does not deserve any leniency. 10. Since all the relatives of the deceased have already been examined, there is no question of applicant threatening or influencing them in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

Moreover, he was earlier enlarged on interim bail and such concession was never misused by him.

¶27

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, albeit , without expressing any opinion over the merits of the case, the applicant is, hereby, directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate with following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant would provide his Mobile Number and would ensure that such Mobile Number remains active and operational, till the disposal of the case by the learned Trial Court.

¶29

(ii) The applicant would not try to come in contact of family members of deceased, directly or indirectly.

¶30

The application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶31

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

¶32

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶33

MAY 21, 2026/ sw/sa

¶34

BAIL APPLN. 1692/2026 3

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 22/05/2026 at 11:05:17

Rajveer Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer Singh v. State 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer @Wajid Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shaikh Mohammad Sayeed Vs Reshma Bahadur

Harish Chander Vs State NCT of Delhi

Nakul Jain Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rohit Lehra and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Honey Kharbanda and Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.