Disposed¶20

Triptee Srivastava v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC24 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./3763/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application disposed of; apprehension of arrest on possible supplementary chargesheet; petitioner not named in chargesheet columns 11-12; matter settled with complainant; petitioner cooperating in investigation; direction of one-week prior written intimation before custodial interrogation; participation in investigation on written notice; Delhi High Court; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; decided 24.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a protective direction: the I.O. must give the petitioner written intimation at least one week prior if her custodial interrogation is required; pending applications disposed of; petitioner to participate in any ongoing investigation as and when called by written notice. ¶20

Triptee Srivastava Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~4

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3763/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29348/2025

¶4

TRIPTEE SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Tanishq Khurana, Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Ms. Khushi Anand, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Vikas Sangwan, P.S. Dwarka.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶10

% 24.02.2026

¶11

Mr. Tanishq Khurana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner has not been named in column No.11 and 12 of the chargesheet filed in the matter.

¶12

Counsel submits however, that the petitioner apprehends arrest, since the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) may file a supplementary chargesheet.

¶13

Mr. Khurana submits, that the petitioner has in any case been participating in the investigation.

¶14

Counsel has also informed the court that the matter has now been settled with the complainant.

¶15

Upon being queried, Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State, on instructions, submits, that as was represented on the last date, since the petitioner has been participating in the investigation, the I.O. has not required her custodial interrogation.

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 3763/2025

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

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 27/02/2026 at 12:11:32

¶19

Considering the circumstances obtaining in the matter, and in order to address the petitioner’s apprehension, and as also the I.O.’s requirements, the present petition is disposed-of; with a direction that, in the event the I.O. requires petitioner’s custodial interrogation, he would give the petitioner a written intimation at least one week prior in that respect.

¶20

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed-of in the above terms.

¶21

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶22

Needless to add that, if there is any on-going investigation, the petitioner shall participate in it as and when called by the I.O. by a written notice.

¶23

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶24

FEBRUARY 24, 2026 V.Rawat

¶25

BAIL APPLN. 3763/2025

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

Triptee Srivastava v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triptee Srivastava v. State 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Mishra & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vandana Dhiman Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO

Vinod Kumar Vs State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Anil Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ritik @ Uday @ Gogi Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Ashish Kumar Kapri Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr. & Anr.