Delhi High Court Seeks Streamlining In Bail Matters, Flags Police Inaction
Despite repeated opportunities, no status report had been filed by the State.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Sections 117(2), 79, 351(3), 64(1), 74, 3(5) BNS, while also expressing concern over the conduct of the police in handling bail matters.
A Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia noted at the outset that despite repeated opportunities, no status report had been filed by the State.
Advocate Sona Lal appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for the Respondent.
The learned APP expressed anguish that investigating officers and SHOs do not respond despite repeated reminders. In the present case as well, the IO was not sent and even the appearing officer did not have the investigation file.
The Court observed that it is being very frequently seen that status reports are either not filed or are handed across the board, leading to unnecessary adjournments. It remarked, “That is not how liberty of an individual has to be dealt with. It seems that the higher authorities of police are completely unaware about this aspect of working at grassroot levels.”
It further recorded that earlier practice required investigating officers to brief prosecutors before court sittings, ensuring that prosecutors were fully equipped. However, now investigators either do not appear, appear without file, or attempt to brief prosecutors inside the courtroom after proceedings have begun.
The Court observed, “In the present case, conduct of Delhi Police in not filing status report till date and not sending the investigating officer to assist the court and the prosecutor conveys that police is not interested in opposing this anticipatory bail application. But that disinterest should not be a ground for this Court to ignore the nature of allegations.”
The allegations, as reflected in the FIR, were described as very serious, involving claims of harassment, physical assault, threats, and sexual misconduct within the matrimonial home, including acts attributed to the husband and his relatives.
The defence argued that the allegations were false and arose out of a matrimonial dispute which had been settled between the prosecutrix and her husband. However, counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the bail plea and denied any knowledge of such settlement.
Considering the nature of allegations, the Court held that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
The Court also directed, "Copy of this order be sent to the DCP (Legal Cell) of Delhi Police through the Standing Counsel with the hope that the prosecution of bail matters shall be streamlined."
Cause Title: Gulam Nabi v. State, [2026:DHC:2344]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Sona Lal
Respondent: Advocates Sanjeev Sabharwal, Arjun Malik
