Disposed¶23

Chotu Yadav v. the State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC4 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./182/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court bail order (Bail Appln. 182/2026), decided 04.02.2026 by Manoj Jain, J. Regular bail granted on prolonged-incarceration grounds (~9 years 8 months custody since 09.06.2016) in FIR 189/2016, P.S. Khyala — offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 368, 343, 506 IPC and Sections 6/21 POCSO Act; first bail application before this Court; all material witnesses examined; prosecutrix deceased per counsel's submission; un-satisfactory jail conduct attributed partly to long custody; personal bond Rs. 10,000/- with one surety; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to satisfaction of learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate; copy of order to be sent to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent; dasti copy to parties.

Chotu Yadav Vs the State NCT of Delhi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant in FIR No.189/2016 (P.S. Khyala), primarily on the ground that he has been in custody for approximately 10 years, where all material witnesses have been examined.

¶22

Court's answer

On the ground of inordinate incarceration (approximately 9 years 8 months), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, regular bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate.

¶23

Key takeaways

Observation that the applicant's overall jail conduct is reported as un-satisfactory, which to some extent can be presumed on account of the long incarceration; the Nominal Roll does not indicate any other involvement of the applicant.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) granted regular bail to the applicant, an undertrial in FIR No.189/2016 dated 12.04.2016 of P.S. Khyala, initially registered under Section 363 IPC with Sections 366/376/328/368/343/506 IPC and Sections 6/21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 subsequently added in the charge-sheet. The Nominal Roll showed continuous custody from 09.06.2016, i.e., approximately 9 years 8 months (about 10 years), with no other involvement indicated, though jail conduct was reported as un-satisfactory. All material witnesses had been examined; counsel submitted the prosecutrix allegedly committed suicide about 11 months after the incident before she could testify, though her parents had deposed. Bail was granted solely on the ground of inordinate incarceration, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount. The application was disposed of.

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 182/2026 & CRL.M.A. 1519/2026

¶4

CHOTU YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Hari Krishan with Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Anuj, PS Khyala.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.02.2026

¶12

Applicant seeks regular bail in FIR No.189/2016 dated 12.04.2016, for commission of offence under Section 363 of IPC, registered at P.S. Khyala. Subsequently, in the charge-sheet, Sections 366/376/328/368/343/506 IPC and Sections 6/21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) were added.

¶13

This happens to be the first bail application filed by the petitioner in this Court.

¶14

The Nominal Roll is on record which shows that the petitioner is in custody with effect from 09.06.2016 and, thus, is in continuous incarceration for approximately 9 years 8 months.

¶15

The Nominal Roll does not indicate any other involvement of the applicant. His overall jail conduct has been reported as un-satisfactory, which, to some extent, can be presumed on account of such long

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 182/2026 1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 06/02/2026 at 12:16:54

¶19

incarceration.

¶20

It is apprised that all material witnesses have already been examined.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix had, allegedly, committed suicide after 11 months of the incident in question, before she could enter into the witness box in the case in hand. However, her parents have already entered into the witness box.

¶22

The bail is, primarily, being sought for the reason that applicant is behind bars for approximately 10 years.

¶23

Keeping in mind the inordinate incarceration, and without expressing any opinion over the merits of the case, bail is granted to the petitioner, on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate.

¶24

The present application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

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

¶26

A copy of this Order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

¶27

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 4, 2026 st/pb

¶29

BAIL APPLN. 182/2026 2

¶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 06/02/2026 at 12:16:54

Chotu Yadav v. the State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chotu Yadav v. the 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

Satender Singh Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Rohit Dhingra & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Aryan Bagga Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jaskaran Singh Arora & Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Sanjay Jain through the Pairokar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sudha Ramasamy & Anr. Vs the State of N.C.T of Delhi & Ors.