Disposed¶20

Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2026BAIL APPLN./3235/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application BAIL APPLN.3235/2025; High Court of Delhi; Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma; order dated 12.01.2026; Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.; exemption application CRL.M.A. 943/2026 allowed subject to just exceptions; CRL.M.A 942/2026; concealment of facts by applicant's wife; applicant taken in custody for mother's last rites; Crl. M.(Bail) No.52/2026 order of 09.01.2026 declared infructuous; no further orders required; no action taken against wife.

What did the court decide?

CRL.M.A. 943/2026 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions; CRL.M.A 942/2026 disposed of with no further orders required, the earlier order of 09.01.2026 having become infructuous and no action taken against the wife of the applicant. ¶20

Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether any action should be taken against the wife of the applicant, who had concealed from the learned counsel the fact that the applicant had been taken in custody for conducting the last rites of his mother (leading to the filing of Crl. M.(Bail) No.52/2026, ordered upon on 09.01.2026), and whether any further orders were required in the matter.

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the overall facts and circumstances, the Court did not consider it appropriate to take any action against the wife of the applicant.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The earlier order passed on 09.01.2026 (in Crl. M.(Bail) No.52/2026) has become infructuous and no further orders are required to be passed in the present case.

¶19

Key takeaways

Exemption application CRL.M.A. 943/2026 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order dated 12.01.2026 of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (High Court of Delhi), in BAIL APPLN.3235/2025 (Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.). Exemption application CRL.M.A. 943/2026 allowed subject to all just exceptions. In CRL.M.A 942/2026, learned counsel informed the Court that the wife of the applicant had concealed that the applicant had been taken in custody for conducting the last rites of his mother, and that only on account of this concealment had counsel filed Crl. M.(Bail) No.52/2026, on which the Court had passed an order on 09.01.2026. The wife, questioned by the Court, attributed her failure to disturbance over her mother-in-law's demise. The Court decided not to take any action against her, held that the order of 09.01.2026 had become infructuous, that no further orders were required, and disposed of the application accordingly.

¶1

$~88

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN.3235/2025

¶4

KAUSHAL GUPTA @ RAJESH GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Kirti Chauhan, Mr. Rohit Sehrawat and Mr. Deepanshu Goswami, Advocates along with wife of the petitioner.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 12.01.2026

¶10

CRL.M.A. 943/2026 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.A 942/2026

¶14

By way of the present application, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein informs this Court that the wife of the applicant, who is present in Court, had failed to inform them that the applicant had been taken in custody for the purpose of conducting last rites of his mother. The learned counsel states that this fact was concealed by the wife of the applicant herein and only because of that, they had filed the application. i.e. Crl. M.(Bail) No.52/2026, on which this Court had passed the order on 09.01.2026.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, this

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 15/01/2026 at 11:49:09

¶18

Court had asked the wife of the applicant as to why she had failed to inform the learned counsel about the true facts, who states that due to demise of her mother-in-law, she was disturbed and could not inform the learned counsel properly.

¶19

In view of the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to take any action against the wife of the applicant. The earlier order passed on 09.01.2026, in any case, has become infructuous and no further orders are required to be passed in the present case.

¶20

Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶21

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶22

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶23

JANUARY 12, 2026/A/TD

¶24

This is a digitally signed order. 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 15/01/2026 at 11:49:09

Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Gupta @ Rajesh Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr.

Bhag Chand @ Bhag Chandra Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Priyanka Agarwal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Sonu Dahiya Vs State NCT of Delhi

Vijay Singh Vs Shivani

Vijay Kumar @ Munna Vs the State NCT of Delhi