Allowed

Jitender Bhati @ Happy through His Pairokar and Wife Ms Monika Jindal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC17 Jan 2026BAIL APPLN./4571/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner accused in a murder and abduction case, finding it a fit case due to the grant of bail to co-accused with a similar role and the petitioner's long detention since 2015, despite allegations of threatening the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety.

Jitender Bhati @ Happy through His Pairokar and Wife Ms Monika… — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 17.01.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 4571/2025

¶5

JITENDER BHATI @ HAPPY THROUGH HIS PAIROKAR AND WIFE MS MONIKA JINDAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Ravindra Narayan, Mr. Ranjan Kumar and Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State with Inspector Jaspal Singh, PS Burari

¶9

Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate for victim

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 1360/2015 of PS Burari for offence under Section 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.

¶13

On last date, after arguments were advanced by learned counsel for accused/applicant and by learned APP, adjournment was requested by

¶14

BAIL APPLICATION 4571/2025

¶15

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶16

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: 2026.01.17 16:15:09 -08'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.01.2026 16:20:41

¶19

complainant de facto as he wanted to engage a counsel to assist the learned prosecutor. Accordingly, today I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto.

¶20

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 29.10.2015, the complainant de facto lodged a missing report as regards his brother Pawan Kumar. Thereafter, on 01.11.2015, FIR was registered by police on the statement of the complainant de facto that his brother Pawan had not returned home; that on 28.10.2015, Pawan had left home at about 04:00pm to manage the accounts as he used to give money on loan; that before he left home, Pawan had received a phone call from Jitender @ Happy ( the present accused/applicant ); and that Pawan had not returned despite missing report dated 29.10.2015, so he suspected that Pawan was abducted by Jitender @ Happy and his brother Narender @ Pappan, with whom Pawan had exchange of hot words over money dispute on 27.10.2015. Subsequent to registration of the FIR, dead body of Pawan reflecting gunshot injuries coupled with smashed face was discovered. The further investigation revealed that the accused/applicant and co-accused Rahul Baisla had shot Pawan dead and after that they smashed his face.

¶21

Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that all co-accused persons of this case already stand released on bail and in this regard learned counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through copies of those bail orders annexed with this application. It is

¶22

BAIL APPLICATION 4571/2025

¶23

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶24

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.01.2026 16:20:41

¶27

contended that the accused Rahul Baisla, who allegedly had the same role as the present accused/applicant also has been granted bail, so on parity the accused/applicant also deserves the same relief. It is also contended that out of 81 prosecution witnesses, only 32 have been examined till date while the accused/applicant is in custody since the year 2015, so even on that ground he deserves to be released on bail.

¶28

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto do not dispute that the role ascribed to the accused/applicant is same as that ascribed to Rahul Baisla, who has already been granted bail. However, it is submitted by both of them that when the accused/applicant was released on interim bail during Covid period, he was declared a proclaimed offender and threatened the complainant de facto on 01.01.2024, so FIR No. 213/2024 was registered by PS Wazirabad. There is no other ground of opposition of bail.

¶29

As regards the FIR No. 213/2024, it is explained by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the same was registered much belatedly on 02.03.2024. Besides, it is also contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the complainant de facto had already been completely examined during trial by 27.05.2019, so there was no reason for the accused/applicant to threaten the complainant de facto .

¶30

Considering the overall circumstances, especially grant of bail to all accused persons including Rahul Baisla, who was ascribed same role as ascribed to the accused/applicant and also the fact that the accused/applicant BAIL APPLICATION 4571/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages

¶31

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶32

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.01.2026 16:20:41

¶35

is in jail since 2015 and end of trial does not seem to be in near future, I find this a fit case to grant bail.

¶36

The application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶37

A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.01.17 16:14:32 -08'00'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

JANUARY 17, 2026 ‘ rs’

¶41

BAIL APPLICATION 4571/2025

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 7.01.2026 16:20:41

Jitender Bhati @ Happy through His Pairokar and Wife Ms Monika Jindal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitender Bhati @ Happy through His Pairokar and Wife Ms Monika Jindal v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Abhishek @ Montu Vs the State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Osita Modestus Obi Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Vinod Kumar Aggarwal Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Rohit Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ajay Rajput Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Javed Ali & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.