Dismissed¶¶35

Salam @ Channa v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./1765/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parity ground rejected: the bail granted to co-accused Chand Ali and Raja Babu rested on their ascribed role being mere presence at the spot, a role completely distinguishable from that of the present applicant; co-accused Farhan has not been granted bail till date. ¶¶27

Salam @ Channa Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant (Salam @ Channa) should be granted regular bail in FIR No. 999/2021, PS Rajouri Garden, for offences under Sections 302/201/149/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. +4 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

Bail refused: considering the gravity of the offence and the testimony of the mother of the deceased, who supported the prosecution case, the Court did not find it a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the application.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶¶27

Key takeaways

Delay-in-trial ground rejected: the earlier application was withdrawn after this Court's order dated 07.02.2026 found no delay attributable to prosecution or the Court; now that the mother of the deceased has strongly supported the prosecution case and the father had no specific role as a witness, the applicant cannot claim bail alleging delay in trial.ratio¶¶28
The absence-of-objectionable-antecedents argument does not avail: the Court found substance in the prosecution's submission that this is a case of honour killing, in which the accused persons allegedly killed the boy who had an affair with the sister of the stabber and niece of the applicant.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular bail application of Salam @ Channa, maternal uncle of the girl involved, an accused in FIR No. 999/2021 of PS Rajouri Garden for offences under Sections 302/201/149/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, dismissed by the High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia J., oral judgment dated 13.07.2026). The applicant is alleged to have caught hold of the deceased (Dablu) while co-accused Farhan stabbed him; the Court accepted that this is a case of honour killing. Parity with the bailed co-accused Chand Ali and Raja Babu was rejected, their prosecution-ascribed role being mere presence at the spot and therefore completely distinguishable; co-accused Farhan remains unbailed. The delay-in-trial argument failed because the earlier application had been withdrawn after this Court's order dated 07.02.2026 (Annexure A-4) found no delay attributable to prosecution or the Court, and the mother of the deceased has since testified in support of the prosecution while two public witnesses turned hostile. Weighing the gravity of the offence and the mother's supporting testimony, the Court held it was not a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the application, directing a copy of the order to the concerned Jail Superintendent.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13.07.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026

¶5

SALAM @ CHANNA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M. L. Yadav, Mr. Prashant and Mr. Piyush, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with Inspector Rampal, PS Shalimar Bagh and Inspector Mahesh, PS Rajouri Garden.

¶8

Mr. Piyush Pathak, Advocate for the deceased with mother of the deceased in person.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 999/2021 of Police Station Rajouri Garden for offence under Section 302/201/149/34 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

¶12

Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that he caught hold of the deceased while the co-accused, Farhan stabbed the deceased. In the hospital, the deceased informed his mother that he was

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4 GIRISH afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - KATHPALIA 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879 65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.13 16:59:57 +05'30'

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 17:27:19

¶18

caught hold of by the present accused/applicant and stabbed by Farhan. According to prosecution case, the deceased, Dablu was in love affair with sister of Farhan; the present accused/applicant is maternal uncle of that girl.

¶19

Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that in view of the role played by the accused/applicant, which was mere catching hold of the deceased, this is a fit case to grant bail. It is contended that delay in conclusion of trial also is a vital ground in the present case. It is also contended that the co-accused, Chand Ali and Raja Babu have already been granted bail. It is also contended that there are no objectionable antecedents of the accused/applicant and he is in custody since 02.12.2021.

¶20

Learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Mahesh strongly opposes this bail application on the ground that it is a case of honour killing, in which the present accused/applicant being maternal uncle of the girl and co-accused Farhan being brother of the girl killed the deceased.

¶21

Learned counsel for complainant de facto also strongly opposes the bail application, submitting that mother of the deceased has supported the prosecution case during her testimony, but two other public witnesses have turned hostile to prosecution under pressure from the family of accused/applicant.

¶22

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶24

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.13 16:59:45 +05'30'

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 17:27:19

¶27

Admittedly, Farhan has not been granted bail till date and as regards the bail granted to Chand Ali and Raja Babu, the role ascribed to them by prosecution is only to the extent that they were present at the spot. Role of the present accused/applicant is completely distinguishable.

¶28

As regards the issue of delay in trial, learned counsel for complainant de facto points out that in the earlier bail application, vide order dated 07.02.2026 ( Annexure A-4 to the application ), this Court, after examining the ordersheets of the trial court, opined that there was no delay in trial that could be attributed to prosecution or the Court, therefore, that application was withdrawn by the accused/applicant with liberty to file afresh after recording of testimony of the parents of the deceased and now, that the mother of the deceased has strongly supported the prosecution case while the father of the deceased had no specific role as a witness, the accused/applicant cannot claim bail alleging delay in trial.

¶29

So far as the argument that there are no objectionable antecedents, I find substance in submission of prosecution that this is a case of honour killing in which the accused persons allegedly killed the boy who had an affair with the sister of the stabber and niece of the accused/applicant.

¶30

Considering the gravity of the offence and testimony of mother of the deceased, who has supported prosecution case, I do not find it a fit case to

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026

¶32

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶33

GIRISH KATHPALIA 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=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.13 16:59:35 +05'30'

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 17:27:19

¶35

grant bail to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
GIRISH c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.13 16:59:22 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)

¶38

JULY 13, 2026/ dr

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 1765/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 3.07.2026 17:27:19

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the accused/applicant (Salam @ Channa) should be granted regular bail in FIR No. 999/2021, PS Rajouri Garden, for offences under Sections 302/201/149/34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.¶¶11
The court held
Bail refused: considering the gravity of the offence and the testimony of the mother of the deceased, who supported the prosecution case, the Court did not find it a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the application.ratio¶¶30
2.
Whether the applicant's alleged role of merely catching hold of the deceased (while co-accused Farhan stabbed him) makes this a fit case for grant of bail.medium confidence¶¶19
3.
Whether delay in conclusion of the trial is a vital ground entitling the applicant to bail.medium confidence¶¶19
The court held
Delay-in-trial ground rejected: the earlier application was withdrawn after this Court's order dated 07.02.2026 found no delay attributable to prosecution or the Court; now that the mother of the deceased has strongly supported the prosecution case and the father had no specific role as a witness, the applicant cannot claim bail alleging delay in trial.ratio¶¶28
4.
Whether parity with co-accused Chand Ali and Raja Babu, who have already been granted bail, entitles the applicant to bail.medium confidence¶¶19
The court held
Parity ground rejected: the bail granted to co-accused Chand Ali and Raja Babu rested on their ascribed role being mere presence at the spot, a role completely distinguishable from that of the present applicant; co-accused Farhan has not been granted bail till date.ratio¶¶27
5.
Whether the absence of objectionable antecedents of the applicant supports grant of bail.medium confidence¶¶19
The court held
The absence-of-objectionable-antecedents argument does not avail: the Court found substance in the prosecution's submission that this is a case of honour killing, in which the accused persons allegedly killed the boy who had an affair with the sister of the stabber and niece of the applicant.ratio¶¶29

Salam @ Channa v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salam @ Channa v. State (Nct of Delhi)

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

Kanna @ Bhuvnesh Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T) of Delhi

Amit Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Nitu Devi Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Master Deepak Choudhary Minor through His Father Vs National Human Rights Commission & Ors.

Smt. Neha Vs Vishal Verma

Karan Parcha Vs State of NCT of Delhi