Disposed¶25

Tarun Arora v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./836/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, Bail Applns. 835 & 836/2025, Varun Arora & Tarun Arora v. State NCT of Delhi (PS Amar Colony), Saurabh Banerjee J., 11.02.2026: police accountability order — erstwhile SHO Anuj Aggarwal and IO Madhu Bala warned after non-appearance despite direction dated 10.02.2026; IO admitted false site visit recorded in Status Report dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) and failed to identify policemen in CCTV footage; DCP South East directed to produce SHO; charge-sheet filed 02.09.2025; bail petitions permitted to be withdrawn with liberty; applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to withdraw the bail petitions with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law; police officials left with a warning to be careful and diligent in future; applications disposed of. ¶25

Tarun Arora Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Accountability of the erstwhile SHO (Mr. Anuj Aggarwal) and the IO (Ms. Madhu Bala) of PS Amar Colony for non-appearance despite the Court's direction dated 10.02.2026, and for the IO's admission contradicting the categorical site-visit recorded in her Status Report dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-6). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Court expressed displeasure at the erstwhile SHO Mr. Anuj Aggarwal's refusal to appear and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South East district) to ensure his presence before the Court at 02:30 PM the same day.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

After long deliberations, since both the erstwhile SHO Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and IO Ms. Madhu Bala apologized for their conduct/behaviour, and since the learned SC along with the ASC appearing for the Delhi Police and the DCP assured the Court to look into the matter and rectify the defect(s), the officials were left with a warning to be careful and diligent in future.

¶23

Key takeaways

On learned counsel for the applicant submitting that, the charge-sheet having been filed on 02.09.2025, custody and interrogation of the applicant were not required, the Court permitted withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.ratio¶24
The present applications (Bail Applns. 835/2025 and 836/2025) were accordingly disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J.), Bail Applns. 835/2025 (Varun Arora) and 836/2025 (Tarun Arora) v. State (NCT of Delhi), order dated 11.02.2026. Continuing from the order dated 10.02.2026 directing the present SHO, PS Amar Colony, the erstwhile SHO and IO Ms. Madhu Bala to attend, the Court recorded that the erstwhile SHO, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, had refused to appear claiming a meeting; the Court disapproved and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South East district) to produce him at 02:30 PM. The Court further recorded that although the Bail Reply/Status Report dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-6), signed by the IO and counter-signed by the erstwhile SHO, categorically stated that the IO visited H.No.4, Near Lotus Temple, Kalkaji Marg, Kalkaji Delhi with SI Kuldeep, the IO admitted before the Court she never went there and could not recognize either policeman in CCTV footage played the previous day. After the officers apologized and the SC, ASC and DCP assured rectification, they were left with a warning to be careful and diligent in future. Counsel then submitted that the charge-sheet, filed on 02.09.2025, rendered custody and interrogation unnecessary; withdrawal of the petitions was permitted with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, and the applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~76 & 77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 835/2025

¶4

VARUN ARORA .....Applicant Through: Mr. Vikas Walia, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Arunodya, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates

¶7

¶8

- BAIL APPLN. 836/2025 TARUN ARORA .....Applicant Through: Mr. Vikas Walia, Ms. Drishti Harpalani, Mr. Yash Sharma and Mr. Arunodya, Advs.

¶9

versus

¶10

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms. Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya Bakshi, Advocates

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶12

O R D E R % 11.02.2026

¶13

Vide last order dated 10.02.2026, the present SHO, PS.: Amar Colony, New Delhi alongwith the earlier/ concerned SHO and the Investigating Officer ( IO ), namely, Ms. Madhu Bala, were specifically

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 13/02/2026 at 10:13:20

¶16

directed to remain present in Court today. Despite thereto, even though, as per learned APP, they have been duly apprised, they are not present when the matter is called.

¶17

However, later on, barring Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, the erstwhile SHO, and all the concerned officials have appeared before this Court. 3. Upon inquiry, Mr. Raghuindra Verma, learned APP apprises this Court that when the said Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, the erstwhile SHO was recently contacted, he simply refused to be present in Court saying that he is allegedly in a meeting. 4. This Court does not appreciate this. As such, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South East district) is directed to ensure the presence of Mr. Anuj Aggarwal SHO before this Court at 02:30 PM today. 5. During the course of hearing, even though in the Bail Reply/ Status Report dated 20.02.2025 ( Annexure P-6 ) prepared and signed by Ms. Madhu Bala, IO and counter signed by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, the erstwhile SHO, it has been categorically stated by Ms. Madhu Bala, IO that she herself went to the H.No.4, Near Lotus Temple, Kalkaji Marg, Kalkaji Delhi along with SI Kuldeep, however, she admits before this Court she never went to the said H.No.4, Near Lotus Temple, Kalkaji Marg, Kalkaji Delhi. So much so, even after being shown the CCTV footage which was played yesterday, she is unable to recognize either of the two policemen there.

¶18

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶19

FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ bh

¶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 13/02/2026 at 10:13:20

¶22

At 02:30PM:

¶23

After long deliberations, since both Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, the erstwhile SHO and Ms. Madhu Bala, IO have apologized for their conduct/ behaviour and since the learned SC along with the ASC appearing in person for the Delhi Police along with the DCP have assured this Court to look into the matter and rectify the defect(s), if any, at the earliest and in the best possible manner, they are left with a warning to be careful and diligent in future.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the charge-sheet has been filed on 02.09.2025, custody and interrogation of the applicant is not required, he seeks, and is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶25

Accordingly, the present applications are disposed of.

¶26

A copy of this order be kept with the connected matters.

¶27

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ bh

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 13/02/2026 at 10:13:20

Tarun Arora v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Arora v. State Govt. of 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shibli Vs State of Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Gulshan Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vinod Bansal Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Amit Tiwari Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shri Bhupender Singh Vs Smt. Renu & Anr.