Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Om Prakash Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Delhi HC
2026
Om Prakash Vs the State Govt. of NCT of DelhiOm Prakash v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Disposed¶¶18

Om Prakash v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Bail application – disposed of as infructuous (Saurabh Banerjee, J., 13.01.2026)

Delhi HC13 Jan 2026BAIL APPLN./913/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, BAIL APPLN. 913/2025, Om Prakash v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, decided 13.01.2026 by Saurabh Banerjee, J. Bail application disposed of as infructuous after the applicant's arrest on 04.03.2025 pursuant to Non-bailable Warrants granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts on 02.03.2025, during the pendency of the application filed on 27.02.2025; the Police's hurried and arbitrary action, taken without disclosing the pending application to the learned M.M., was observed to raise a shadow of doubt; unconditional apology of erstwhile SHO Ravinder Tomar and I.O. Vipin Rathi (SI, P.S. Tigri) accepted in open Court with an admonition not to repeat such steps. Keywords: bail application infructuous; arrest during pendency of bail application; non-bailable warrant; Metropolitan Magistrate Saket; police conduct; apology accepted; SHO; investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant; the bail application was disposed of as infructuous, with the unconditional apologies of the erstwhile SHO and the I.O. accepted in open Court and an admonition issued to them not to repeat such steps. ¶¶18

Why is it important?

Nothing remains in the present bail application; it has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. ¶¶17

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the applicant; the bail application was disposed of as infructuous, with the unconditional apologies of the erstwhile SHO and the I.O. accepted in open Court and an admonition issued to them not to repeat such steps.

Issue for consideration

Whether the pending bail application survives for adjudication, given that the applicant was arrested during its pendency and kept in custody for one month. +1 more

Court's answer

Nothing remains in the present bail application; it has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

The urgency with which the Police proceeded to arrest the applicant in an arbitrary manner, treating the proceedings as if it was a special case, raises a shadow of doubt over their actions, particularly in the midst of the pendency of the bail application.

Key takeaways

The Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered in open Court by Mr. Ravinder Tomar, the erstwhile SHO, and Mr. Vipin Rathi, the I.O.ratio¶¶16
The Court called upon the I.O. and the erstwhile SHO not to repeat the steps which were followed hurriedly by them in such an arbitrary manner.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application — disposed of as infructuous (Saurabh Banerjee, J., 13.01.2026) — applicant arrested on 04.03.2025 pursuant to Non-bailable Warrants granted on 02.03.2025 by the learned M.M., Saket Courts, during the pendency of the bail application filed on 27.02.2025, the filing/receipt whereof was not brought to the learned M.M.'s notice — Court observed that the urgency shown by the Police to proceed in an arbitrary manner, treating the proceedings as a special case, raised a shadow of doubt over their actions — erstwhile SHO (Mr. Ravinder Tomar) and I.O. (Mr. Vipin Rathi) tendered due unconditional apology in open Court; apology accepted — officers called upon not to repeat the steps followed hurriedly in such an arbitrary manner.

A

$~1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- BAIL APPLN. 913/2025 OM PRAKASH .....Applicant

Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State alongwith Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh and Mr. Ashish Mahani, Advs. and SI Vipin Rathi, P.S. Tigri, South Delhi.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R

% 13.01.2026

The present bail application was filed on 27.02.2025 after supplying an advance copy to the State/ Police, before it being listed for the first time on 03.03.2025 when it was duly represented. Although no stay/ interim order was granted in favour of the applicant, however, the same was kept day after 05.03.2025 for hearing.

In the interregnum, the Police moved an appropriate application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi ( learned M.M. ) for taking appropriate steps with respect to issuance of Non-bailable Warrants against the applicant, and though it was granted on 02.03.2025, however, filing/ receipt of the present application was not brought to the notice of the learned M.M. as there was no mention therein. In fact, in compliance thereof the Police arrested the applicant on 04.03.2025 and kept the applicant under custody for a period of one month .

No doubt, there was no order in favour of the applicant, and as

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 11:50:49

expected, the Police (personnel) were moving ahead in accordance with law as per the procedure(s) prescribed, however, the urgency shown by them to proceed in an arbitrary manner treating the proceedings as if it was a special case, whence there is no such noting therein in the file handed over to this Court by the learned APP and the surrounding circumstances as per above raise a shadow of doubt over their action(s), and that too, in the midst of pendency of the present application.

At this stage, Mr. Ravinder Tomar, the erstwhile SHO and Mr. Vipin Rathi, I.O., both present in Court, have tendered their due unconditional apology and submit with all fairness that they shall rectify their mistake(s), if any, and shall not commit these kind of errors in future. 5. This Court accepts the respective apology tendered by Mr. Ravinder Tomar, the erstwhile SHO and Mr. Vipin Rathi, I.O. in open Court. 6. However, considering that the I.O. and the erstwhile SHO involved, are present in Court, this Court feels it appropriate to call upon them not to repeat the same steps which were followed hurriedly by them in such an arbitrary manner, particularly, since they are for providing assistance and protection to the common man on the street and also have a personal liability towards the people of this Nation, and since they themselves have a future ahead.

Since nothing is remaining in the present bail application, the same has become infructuous.

Accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

JANUARY 13, 2026/ bh

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 11:50:49

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the pending bail application survives for adjudication, given that the applicant was arrested during its pendency and kept in custody for one month.¶¶17
The court held
Nothing remains in the present bail application; it has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶¶17
2.
Whether the conduct of the Police in obtaining Non-bailable Warrants and arresting the applicant during the pendency of his bail application, without disclosing the filing to the learned M.M., was arbitrary.¶¶15
The court held
The urgency with which the Police proceeded to arrest the applicant in an arbitrary manner, treating the proceedings as if it was a special case, raises a shadow of doubt over their actions, particularly in the midst of the pendency of the bail application.ratio¶¶15

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Bail application filed on 27.02.2025 after supplying an advance copy to the State/Police; listed for the first time on 03.03.2025 and duly represented; no stay/interim order granted; kept day after 05.03.2025 for hearing.¶¶10
Prior proceeding
In the interregnum, the Police moved an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi for issuance of Non-bailable Warrants against the applicant.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Non-bailable Warrants granted by the learned M.M. on 02.03.2025; the filing/receipt of the pending bail application was not brought to the learned M.M.'s notice.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
In compliance of the warrants, the Police arrested the applicant on 04.03.2025 and kept him under custody for one month.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Erstwhile SHO Mr. Ravinder Tomar and I.O. Mr. Vipin Rathi, both present in Court, tendered their due unconditional apology, which the Court accepted in open Court.¶¶16

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Om Prakash¶¶3
Amit Kumar
respondent
The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi¶¶6
Raghuinder Verma, Aditya Vikram Singh, Ashish Mahani

Coram

AI extract

Saurabh Banerjeeauthor¶¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Delhi HC
Decided on: 13 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 1 Mar 2025
Case no.: BAIL APPLN./913/2025
CNR: DLHC010105492025
Bench: Saurabh Banerjee
Case type: BAIL APPLN.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Saurabh Banerjee

Altaf Raza Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
12 Jan 2026
Sushil Vs Arun Kumar
9 Jan 2026
Govind Singh Bisht Vs State (Nct of Delhi)
9 Jan 2026
Jitender Dixit Vs Ruchi & Anr.
13 Jan 2026
Sikander Behl Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
13 Jan 2026Writ Petition (Criminal)
Mr. Himanshu Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
13 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Om Prakash v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN./913/2025 (DEL), decided on 13 January 2026.

The High Court of Delhi publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history5

Bail application filed on 27.02.2025 after supplying an advance copy to the State/Police; listed for the first time on 03.03.2025 and duly represented; no stay/interim order granted; kept day after 05.03.2025 for hearing.
In the interregnum, the Police moved an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi for issuance of Non-bailable Warrants against the applicant.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Saurabh Banerjee

Parties & counsel