Disposed¶27

Suraj @ Fighter v. the State NCT of Delhi

Bail – Regular bail granted

Delhi HC6 Apr 2026BAIL APPLN./4999/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court (Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma), order dated 06.04.2026 in BAIL APPLN. 4999/2025: regular bail granted to Suraj @ Fighter in FIR 52/2021 (PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi) under Sections 419/420/392/398/411/34B IPC, on grounds of about 4.5 years custody, only 10 of 22 witnesses examined and satisfactory recent jail conduct; bail on Rs.10,000/- personal bond with one surety and conditions; no expression on merits.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including surrender of passport, intimation of change of address, regular appearance before the Trial Court, and no contact with the complainant/prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence. ¶27

Suraj @ Fighter Vs the State NCT of Delhi — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, an accused in FIR No. 52/2021 (PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi) under Sections 419/420/392/398/411/34B IPC who has been in judicial custody for about four and a half years, should be released on regular bail.

¶11

Court's answer

The Court found the applicant's last one year jail conduct to be satisfactory, with the last jail punishment awarded in June, 2024; out of 22 prosecution witnesses only 10 have been examined till date, so the trial will take considerable time to conclude.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, and especially the period of custody undergone by the applicant, the Court granted regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and to conditions imposed.

¶22

Key takeaways

Bail was made subject to conditions: the applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission and shall surrender any passport to the trial court; shall promptly inform the Court and IO/SHO of any change of residential address/contact details; shall appear regularly before the Trial Court unless exempted; and shall not communicate with or contact the complainant or prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.ratio¶23
If the applicant commits any offence during the period he remains on bail, the same shall be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Regular bail granted – Applicant in judicial custody for about four and a half years in FIR No. 52/2021, PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi, for offences under Sections 419/420/392/398/411/34B IPC – Out of 22 prosecution witnesses only 10 examined; trial to take considerable time to conclude – Last one year jail conduct reported satisfactory, last jail punishment in June, 2024, despite 13 earlier jail punishments and involvement in 39 criminal cases as contended by the State – Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions (no departure from India without prior permission, surrender of passport, intimation of change of address/contact details, regular appearance before Trial Court, no contact with complainant or prosecution witnesses and no tampering with evidence) – Commission of any offence during bail period to be ground for cancellation of bail – Nothing expressed to be an opinion on merits of the case.

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 4999/2025

¶4

SURAJ @ FIGHTER .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Pratham Malik & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 06.04.2026

¶11

By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 52/2021, registered at Police Station Subzi Mandi, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 419/420/392/398/411/34B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘ IPC ’).

¶12

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Mr. Vyaan Ajane Tarak Mandal, is engaged in the business of jewellery making. On the night of 28.01.2021 at about 9:15 p.m., the complainant, along with his friend and brother-in-law, had left for Lucknow for the purpose of selling gold jewellery weighing about 2.5 kgs, which was kept inside a bag. They had boarded a TSR bearing No. DL-1RZ-2526 to travel to ISBT Kashmiri Gate. While on their way, they were intercepted by three persons who impersonated themselves as officials of the Crime Branch. On the pretext of checking the bag, the said persons took possession of it and thereafter fled

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 07/04/2026 at 12:02:00

¶15

from the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution that the said three persons had robbed the gold items from the complainant while threatening him with a pistol and a knife.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution; however, all the material witnesses stand examined. It is thus argued that the trial will take considerable time to conclude. It is pointed out that the applicant has been in judicial custody for about four and a half years. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be released on regular bail.

¶17

The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, strongly opposes the bail application and argues that the applicant is not entitled to bail, especially considering his conduct. It is contended that the applicant is involved in as many as 39 criminal cases, out of which trial is ongoing in about 5 cases. It is further stated that his jail conduct is unsatisfactory as he has been awarded 13 jail punishments. It is therefore prayed that the application for grant of regular bail be dismissed.

¶18

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard rival contentions and perused the case file, this Court is of the opinion that the last one year jail conduct of the applicant herein is reported as satisfactory, and last jail punishment awarded to him was in June, 2024. In the present case, out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined till date. Therefore, in this Court’s view, the trial will take considerable time to conclude.

¶19

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and especially the period of custody undergone by the applicant, this Court is

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 07/04/2026 at 12:02:00

¶22

inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge concerned on the following terms and conditions:

¶23

i) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Court and if the applicant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the concerned trial court.

¶24

ii) In case of change of residential address/contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Court and IO/SHO concerned.

¶25

iii) The applicant shall appear regularly before the learned Trial Court, unless exempted.

¶26

iv) The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact with the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

¶27

Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

¶28

It is clarified that in case the applicant commits any offence during the period he remains on bail, the same shall be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶29

It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

¶30

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶31

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶32

APRIL 06, 2026/zp TD

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 07/04/2026 at 12:02:00

Suraj @ Fighter v. the State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj @ Fighter 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

Mohd Aman Rana Vs the State

Ajit Kumar Gola Vs State (Gnctd) and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State and Ors.

Mayank Kashyap @ Puneet Vs State, NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sh. Jishan Basetia & Anr. Vs the State, Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Ajay Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.