Delhi High Court – Orders
From Filing Status Report Rakesh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 26 August, 2025
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2377/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18938/2025 EXEMPTION FROM FILING STATUS REPORT RAKESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr.Adv. Mr. Aditya Aggarwal, Mr. Ankit Mutreja, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Insp. Arun Dagar, PS Bhalswa Dairy. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA ORDER
% 26.08.2025
1. This is an application for the grant of regular bail filed on behalf of
petitioner Rakesh in case FIR No. 215/2024, PS Bhalswa Dairy, under
Section 302/34 IPC.
2. Bail application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the
learned Sessions Court vide order dated 26.06.2025.
3. Learned APP submits that the bail application filed before the
Sessions Court was pressed only on the technical ground that the grounds of
arrest were not supplied in writing to the petitioner by the Investigating
Officer in compliance of Section 15(1) Cr. PC and Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and was not considered on merits. Placing reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550, it has been submitted
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2025 at 22:44:31
that the petitioner should first approach the trial court for bail on merits and
cannot be permitted to urge bail before this Court without first seeking relief
from the trial court.
4. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for the
petitioner, submits that the power of Sessions Court and the High Court in
the matter of grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS are concurrent and there
is no statutory bar for entertaining the bail application by the High Court
without first approaching the Sessions Court. He submits that the
observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal (supra)
are obiter as the same were made while deciding the issue as to whether the
filing of a charge sheet is a change in circumstance warranting relegation to
the trial court for grant of regular bail. In support of his such submission, he
places reliance on the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Utility Users Welfare
Association (2018) 6 SCC 21.
5. Section 483 BNSS confers wide discretion to the Court of Sessions as
also the High Court to enlarge a person on bail. Since both Courts, the Court
of Sessions and this Court have concurrent power, it is desirable that the
Sessions Court should be approached first in the matter. Of course, in extra-
ordinary circumstances for special reasons, the accused may also approach
the High Court directly but the High Court cannot entertain the applications
moved under Section 483 BNSS as a matter of routine and without there
being special reasons or circumstances to entertain the same. By following
this path, the superior court would have the advantage of considering the
opinion of the Sessions Court on the bail application. In the case of Arvind
Kejriwal (supra), following pertinent observations have been made by the
Supreme Court in Para No. 44 & 45, ,which are extracted below:-
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2025 at 22:44:31
“44. An undertrial thus should, ordinarily, first approach the Trial Court
for bail, as this process not only provides the accused an opportunity for
initial relief but also allows the High Court to serve as a secondary avenue
if the Trial Court denies bail for inadequate reasons. This approach is
beneficial for both the accused and the prosecution; if bail is granted
without proper consideration, the prosecution too can seek corrective
measures from the High Court.
45. However, superior courts should adhere to this procedural recourse
from the outset. If an accused approaches the High Court directly without
first seeking relief from the Trial Court, it is generally appropriate for the
High Court to redirect them to the Trial Court at the threshold.
Nevertheless, if there are significant delays following notice, it may not be
prudent to relegate the matter to the Trial Court at a later stage. Bail being
closely tied to personal liberty, such claims should be adjudicated
promptly on their merits, rather than oscillating between courts on mere
procedural technicalities.”
6. Admittedly, petitioner filed the bail application before the Sessions
Court, which came to be dismissed on 26.06.2025. The perusal of the said
order reveals that the bail application was pressed and considered only on
limited ground that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the accused.
No merits of the case have been discussed in the order. The present
application has been filed on the merits of the case, and therefore, it would
be appropriate that petitioner should first approach the trial court for bail on
merits.
7. Even though, notice was served on the last date, there has not been
any significance delay following the notice, the petition is, therefore,
disposed of with direction to the petitioner to first approach the trial court
and seek bail.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
AUGUST 26, 2025
RM
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2025 at 22:44:31
[ad_1]
Source link