Raj Kumar Singla v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR.

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 RAJ KUMAR SINGLA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vinod Dahiya, Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Dhruv Khurana and Mr. Bhaskar, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State.

SI Randeep, P.S.: North Rohini.

Mr. Hariom, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 30.04.2026 By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.0174/2026 dated 04.04.2026 registered under sections 115(2)/126(2)/110/351(2)/190/191(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023('BNS') at P.S.: North Rohini, Delhi. 2.

Notice on this petition was issued on 22.04.2026. 3.

Status report dated 23.04.2026 has been filed. 4.

Nominal roll dated 25.04.2026 has been received from the Jail Superintendent.

5.

The principal submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the subject FIR is a result of an affray that ensued between neighbours in relation to the positioning of a tea stall on the BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 Page 1 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

pedestrian sidewalk. Counsel submits, that all the parties are close neighbours belonging to the same community; and that the FIR came to be registered by the complainant in a fit of rage. 6.

The parties are stated to have resolved their disputes vidé Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed dated 18.04.2026 ('MoU') and the complainant has stated that he has no objection to the petitioner being granted bail.

7.

The parties have also moved a quashing petition bearing CRL.M.C. No.3265/2026, which is pending before this court. The quashing petition is based on MoU dated 18.04.2026. However, it is found that the MoU has not been signed by all the concerned parties, for which reason the proceedings in the quashing petition have been deferred to a later date. The parties have been directed to cure all defects and file a properly signed MoU in the said petition.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that though allegations under section 110 of the BNS have also been made in the subject FIR, a perusal of the MLCs would show that the injured persons had only suffered 'simple' injuries. Counsel submits, that the case was only of an affray, and in the heat of the moment several parties got involved but no serious harm or injury has been caused to any of the injured persons.

9.

Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP appearing for the State on the other hand submits, that the offences narrated in the subject FIR are madeout; and further investigation is required to be conducted in the case. 10.

It is noticed that the present petition is supported by the affidavit of the complainant - Mr. Khushi Ram Bansal, who has stated that the BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 Page 2 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

FIR was registered on account of a dispute that arose from a misunderstanding regarding the positioning of a tea stall. He has said that the matter was purely of a personal nature and occurred due to a sudden altercation, without any pre-meditation; but thereafter, upon intervention of respectable persons of the society and the family, the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. He has, in writing, expressed his 'no objection' to the grant of bail to the petitioner.

11.

The complainant - Mr. Khushi Ram Bansal is also present in court. The court has interacted with him. He reiterates what has been stated by him in the aforementioned affidavit.

12.

Nominal roll dated 25.04.2026 shows that the petitioner has been in custody for almost 01 month; that his jail conduct has been 'satisfactory'; and that he has no other criminal implications. 13.

In the above backdrop, the considerations that weigh with this court at this stage are:

13.1. Firstly, that the parties appear to have settled the matter vidé MoU dated 18.04.2026, based on which a quashing petition has also been filed, which is pending before this court; and has been re-notified only since the parties are required to cure certain defects in the paperwork, as referred-to above. 13.2. Secondly, the complainant in the subject FIR has filed an affidavit supporting the grant of bail to the petitioner, explaining the genesis of the matter, and also stating that the parties have settled the matter inter-se.

13.3. Thirdly, though the offence under section110 of the BNS has BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 Page 3 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

also been added in the subject FIR, the MLCs of the injured persons show that the injuries sustained by them were 'simple' in nature.

14.

Upon a conspectus of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and especially the fact that parties are close neighbours and appear to be expressing contrition for their mutually unruly behavior, this court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner - Raj Kumar Singla s/o Babu Ram Singla - regular bail in case FIR No.0174/2026 dated 04.04.2026 registered under sections 115(2)/126(2)/110/351(2)/190/191(2)/3(5) of the BNS at P.S.: North Rohini, Delhi, subject to the following conditions: 14.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

14.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O, P.S.: North Rohini, Delhi a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times; 14.3. The petitioner shall not offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 Page 4 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

14.4. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing. 15.

Petition stands disposed-of in the above terms. 16.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of. 17.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith.

18.

A copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J APRIL 30, 2026/ak BAIL APPLN. 1565/2026 Page 5 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.