High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DEL CK 0729

Sunil Verma vs State (NCT of Delhi) Through S.H.O.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 29 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
CASE NUMBER
BAIL APPLN. 2968/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22335/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 318 words
1.

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 013889/2026 of Police Station Okhla Industrial Area for offence under Section 305(b) of the BNS.

2.

Broadly speaking, according to prosecution case, e-FIR No. 013889/2026 was registered by the complainant de facto Sachitanand Yadav, alleging theft of his scooty during the period from 11:00pm to 06:00am on 16.06.2026. On the basis of CCTV footage, the accused/applicant was tracked down. The allegedly stolen scooty stands recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is explained by him that the accused/applicant had taken scooty with permission of one Bipin as he had to buy medicine for his ailing daughter.

4.

Learned APP assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Neelam opposes the bail application on the ground that the accused/applicant had joined investigation but told falsehood to the Investigating Officer. It is explained by learned APP on instructions that the slip of Safdarjung Hospital is dated 16.06.2026 and 18.06.2026 while the theft occurred during the night intervening 15.06.2026 and 16.06.2026.

5.

As per status report filed before the Court of Sessions, the Investigating Officer needs custodial interrogation “to bring out the truth whether the scooty was given by Bipin himself or the same has been stolen”. That, to my mind cannot be a reasonable ground for custodial interrogation.

6.

Admittedly, the allegedly stolen scooty stands recovered. Also admittedly there are no objectionable antecedents of the accused/applicant. No purpose would be served by sending the accused/applicant to jail.

7.

Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

8.

The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.