LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gulshan @ Khati vs. State of NCT of Delhi

Bail Application · 2026:DHC:9143Decided 14 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
BAIL APPLN. 3431/2026CNR: DLHC010387732026
Justice Girish Kathpalia

Background

Gulshan @ Khati was accused in a 2019 case involving cheating, forgery, and fake Aadhaar-related offences, with additional charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). While his regular bail application was pending in the High Court, he separately approached the trial court for interim bail and got it, without properly informing the trial court that his High Court bail application was still pending.

Decision Breakdown

The Court found that Gulshan had effectively misled the trial court by only slipping in a vague line about the pending High Court case, rather than disclosing it clearly, and had no real explanation for bypassing the High Court. The Court held this amounted to playing a fraud on both courts, dismissed his bail application outright, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court, asking it to explain within a week how it came to grant interim bail without being properly told about the pending High Court proceedings.

Lesson Learnt

Trying to get bail through one court while concealing a pending bail application in another is treated by courts as a serious abuse of process: it can result not just in dismissal but in the matter being referred back for scrutiny of how the other order was even passed.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Chetan vs. State Govt. of NCT Delhi

The Court noted the relationship appeared consensual, that the girl had gone with Chetan voluntarily, and that her parents no longer wished to continue the prosecution. It relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling criticizing the misuse of the POCSO Act to punish genuine adolescent relationships that families initially object to, and a similar Delhi High Court precedent. Given these factors, the near-complete trial evidence, and over four months already in custody, the Court granted regular bail with standard conditions.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Jitesh @ Jitu vs. State NCT of Delhi

The State argued the wife's surgery wasn't serious enough to justify the full 30 days of interim bail requested. The Court verified the medical documents and surgery date and found the circumstances justified temporary release in the interest of justice, but granted only 10 days rather than the 30 requested, with strict conditions including a firm surrender deadline (with a built-in fallback date if the surgery was postponed).

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Pramila & Anr. vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The three complainants appeared in person, were identified by the investigating officer, and personally confirmed to the judge (in Hindi) that they had compromised all disputes and no longer wished to pursue prosecution. The State raised no objection. The Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Vijay Kumar @ Babloo vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court noted the prison rule barring parole after jumping bail is not absolute: it allows parole where "special circumstances" exist. The rejection order was quashed because it failed to consider the special circumstances raised (the son's situation), ignored the petitioner's good conduct and timely surrender after a 2025 parole, and relied on an outdated address when a new, verifiable one had since been given. The Court ordered police verification of the new address within two weeks and directed prison authorities to pass a fresh, reasoned decision within four weeks.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Sonu @ Kishan Chand vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Monu @ Naveen vs. State (G.N.C.T. of Delhi)

The Court granted bail to both brothers, noting that the injured persons had compromised and did not oppose bail, that most of the trial evidence had already been recorded, and that one brother had been in custody since 2023 and the other since 2022. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that "bail is not to be withheld as a punishment," the Court held that continued detention would be unjustly punitive given these circumstances. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with surety and standard conditions.

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Sanjay Sureka @ Sanjay Kumar Sureka v. Directorate of Enforcement

The Court rejected the appellant's technical objections (a short delay in forwarding arrest material to the Adjudicating Authority, and near-identical "Grounds of Arrest" documents), finding no invalidity in the arrest itself. However, it found the sheer scale of the case, 97 accused, 48 witnesses, ~15,000 pages of documents, investigation still ongoing, made early trial completion unrealistic. Citing Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), it held that PMLA's stringent twin conditions for bail cannot override the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21, and granted bail subject to safeguard conditions (bail bonds, passport deposit, travel restrictions, no witness tampering).

Decided 14 Oct 2026Read case