Rahul Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

Rahul Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief adjudicated. The petition was withdrawn and, alongwith pending applications, disposed of without prejudice: the petitioner remains free to approach the concerned authorities regarding any threat or intimidation (DCP and SHO requested to look into any such complaint and take appropriate action if necessary), with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies if still aggrieved; prayer (c) was treated as not surviving because the Investigating Officer had already been changed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the Ld. ASJ (Electricity), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Bail Regn. No. 1752/2025 should be set aside and the police bail granted to accused Dayashankar, Rohan and Rahul in FIR No. 141/2025 cancelled. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner sought and obtained permission to withdraw the petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to approach the concerned authorities in the event of any threat or intimidation at the hands of the accused or their associates.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner lodges a complaint of threat or intimidation, the concerned DCP and SHO are requested to ensure that it is looked into and appropriate action, if necessary, is taken; if the petitioner remains aggrieved, he will be at liberty to take the appropriate remedies.ratio¶19
Adopting the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the court proceeded on the footing that prayer (c) of the petition (transfer of investigation to an independent officer) does not survive because the Investigating Officer in the matter has already been changed, and disposed of the petition alongwith pending applications in terms of the submissions.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J.), order dated 02.07.2026 in CRL.M.C. 8734/2025 (Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.): The petitioner, complainant in FIR No. 141/2025 dated 10.03.2025 of P.S. Prem Nagar (offences under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5) BNS 2023), filed a Section 528 BNSS petition seeking (a) setting aside of the order dated 06.09.2025 of the Ld. ASJ (Electricity), Rohini Courts, in Bail Regn. No. 1752/2025, (b) cancellation of police bail granted to accused Dayashankar, Rohan and Rahul under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 BNSS on allegations of threats to him, (c) transfer of investigation to an independent officer as a victim's right under Article 21, and (d) disciplinary proceedings against IO HC Om Prakash. After arguments, counsel withdrew the petition without prejudice to approaching the authorities on any further threat or intimidation; the DCP and SHO were requested to look into any such complaint and take appropriate action, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies; prayer (c) was treated as not surviving since the Investigating Officer had already been changed. Petition and pending applications disposed of; notice unserved on the accused (respondent Nos. 2 to 4); observations expressly non-adjudicatory and without prejudice to the accused's rights.