State v. Md. Ubedullah
Case brief
What is this about?
CRL.M.C. 605/2026; CRL.M.A. 2616/2026 (for urgent directions); Delhi High Court; Prateek Jalan, J.; order dated 23.01.2026; remand of Bail Application No. 96/2026 to Sessions Court by order dated 22.01.2026; difficulty in implementation; Roster Judge unavailable; Link Judge declined to hear; assignment by Principal District & Sessions Judge (PD&SJ); Court of learned ASJ (FTC)-01, Central (Sh. J.P. Nahar) named in prayer for transmission of orders; Tis Hazari Courts; Magistrate to verify bail bond at 3:00 PM; typographical correction of paragraph 13 ('parties' remedies before this Court remain reserved'); interim bail prayer not granted; dasti copy.
What did the court decide?
Directions issued: (i) the remanded Bail Application No. 96/2026 to be taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge assigned by the PD&SJ on 24.01.2026 at 10:00 AM, and if that Judge is unavailable, to be mentioned before the learned PD&SJ who may take it up herself or assign it to any other learned Additional Sessions Judge, in compliance with the order dated 22.01.2026; (ii) if bail is granted, listing before the concerned Magistrate at 3:00 PM on 24.01.2026 for verification of the bail bond; (iii) Registry to communicate the order dated 22.01.2026 and this order to the Office of the learned PD&SJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, forthwith; (iv) liberty to the parties to furnish the order before the learned Sessions Court; (v) paragraph 13 of the order dated 22.01.2026 corrected to read 'Needless to say, the parties' remedies before this Court remain reserved.' and the said order to be read accordingly; (vi) copy of the order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. No direction for interim bail pending remand was issued despite prayer (c) in the application.