LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.

Criminal Leave Petition · 2026:DHC:9110-DBDecided 14 Oct 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.L.P. 473/2023CNR: DLHC010370682023
Justice Navin Chawla · Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Background

In 2011, a man died after being found injured on a Delhi road; his brother claimed to have witnessed the two respondents assault him with a brick and rob him. The trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the brother's account contradictory and finding it suspicious that the family delayed and refused a police PCR van to take the injured man to hospital, instead using an auto-rickshaw over an hour later. The State sought permission to appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The High Court agreed with the trial court's doubts: the timeline didn't add up, the refusal of the faster police vehicle was never explained, a second alleged eyewitness turned hostile and gave a different, accidental-injury version, and a young boy who allegedly first reported the assault was never identified or examined. The Court found no prima facie case strong enough to justify even granting permission to appeal, and dismissed the petition; the acquittal stands.

Lesson Learnt

An acquittal is not easily reopened: the State must show the trial court's evidence appreciation was genuinely flawed, not just arguable, and unexplained delay in seeking medical help can itself cast serious doubt on a family's account of how an injury occurred.

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

Gulshan @ Khati vs. State of NCT of Delhi

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.

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