Disposed¶27

Sattar @Zeeshan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(CRL)/591/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(CRL) 591/2026; Sattar @ Zeeshan v. State of NCT of Delhi; speedy/expeditious trial; Article 226 Constitution; section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; FIR No.480/2020 dated 13.09.2020; P.S. Dayal Pur; sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC; sections 25/27 Arms Act 1959; 42 prosecution witnesses named; only 06 examined; charges framed 01.04.2023; trial to conclude preferably within 01 year from 22.04.2026; no unnecessary adjournments; disposed without status report; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani; decided 19.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a request to the learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 01 year from the next date of hearing (stated to be 22.04.2026); no unnecessary adjournments to be granted to the accused or the prosecution. ¶27

Sattar @Zeeshan Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial in FIR No.480/2020 (sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC and sections 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Dayal Pur) should be directed to be concluded expeditiously, given that only 06 of the 42 named prosecution witnesses had been examined despite lapse of more than 05 years since registration of the FIR.

¶21

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a request to the learned trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 01 year from the next date of hearing before that court, stated to be 22.04.2026.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Neither the accused persons nor the prosecution should be granted any unnecessary adjournments in the trial.

¶32

Key takeaways

Having regard to the time lapsed between registration of the FIR, filing of the chargesheet and framing of charges, and the number of prosecution witnesses arraigned, the Court considered it unnecessary to call for a status report or delve further into the matter.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 by Sattar @ Zeeshan, facing trial as co-accused in FIR No.480/2020 dated 13.09.2020 (sections 302/307/120B/34 IPC; sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959) at P.S. Dayal Pur, North-East Delhi, seeking expeditious trial. FIR registered 13.09.2020; chargesheet naming 42 prosecution witnesses filed soon thereafter; charges framed 01.04.2023; only 06 prosecution witnesses examined despite lapse of more than 05 years. Without calling for a status report, the Court disposed of the petition, requesting the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 01 year from the next date of hearing (22.04.2026), and directing that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to the accused or the prosecution.

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 591/2026

¶4

SATTAR @ZEESHAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Lewish Edward, Mr. Vignesh P. and Mr. Sameer, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State. ACP Bed Parkash and SI R. Kumar, P.S.: Dayal Pur.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 19.02.2026

¶11

CRL.M.A. 5668/2026 (exemption)

¶12

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶13

The application stands disposed-of.

¶14

W.P.(CRL) 591/2026

¶15

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks expeditious trial in proceedings arising from case FIR No.480/2020 dated 13.09.2020 registered under sections 302/307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) at P.S.: Dayal Pur, North-East Delhi, in which the petitioner is facing

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 591/2026

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 26/02/2026 at 13:27:55

¶20

trial as co-accused inter-alia for the offence under section 302 of the IPC.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the subject FIR was registered on 13.09.2020; chargesheet in the case was filed soon thereafter in which the prosecution has named 42 witnesses; however despite lapse of more than 05 years, only 06 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

¶22

Upon query, counsel submits that charges in the matter were framed on 01.04.2023.

¶23

Issue notice.

¶24

Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned ASC (Criminal) appears for the State on advance copy; accepts notice; and leaves it to the court to pass appropriate orders.

¶25

Mr. Tyagi however submits, that no direction is called-for to the Investigating Officer to examine the prosecution witnesses in any given sequence.

¶26

In view of the prayer made, it is not considered necessary to call-for a status report or to delve any further into the matter.

¶27

In view of the time that has lapsed between the registration of the FIR; the filing of the chargesheet; and the framing of charges; and considering the number of prosecution witnesses arraigned in the chargesheet, the present petition is disposed-of, with a request to the learned trial court to conclude the trial in the matter as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of 01-year from the next date of hearing before that court, which is stated to be 22.04.2026.

¶28

W.P.(CRL) 591/2026

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 26/02/2026 at 13:27:55

¶32

The accused persons as well as the prosecution should not be granted any unnecessary adjournments.

¶33

The petition is disposed-of in the above terms.

¶34

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

¶35

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶36

FEBRUARY 19, 2026/ ak

¶37

W.P.(CRL) 591/2026

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 26/02/2026 at 13:27:55

Sattar @Zeeshan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar @Zeeshan v. State 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Naresh Tyagi Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rajat Nakra and Ors. Vs the State (Gnct), Delhi and Anr.

Sonu @ Saad Ansari & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ajeet Singh Gehlot @ Ajeet Singh Rajput Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kanika Gautam Vs State NCT of Delhi

Smt Rajia Devi Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah Vs National Investigation Agency

Parul Vijay Ganglani Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu @ Saad Ansari & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ajeet Singh Gehlot @ Ajeet Singh Rajput Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sonu Sonkar Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Joginder Kumar Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mehraz Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

S S Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.