Dipender Kumar Saini v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)
$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1614/2026 DIPENDER KUMAR SAINI .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Amjad Khan with Mr. Mohd.
Azhruddin, Advocates.
versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Aashneet Singh with Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with Insp. Kailash Kumar Phogat, PS Karol Bagh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
O R D E R
% 27.04.2026 CRL.M.A. 13041/2026 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. BAIL APPLN. 1614/2026 1.
Applicant seeks regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.1188/2023 dated 31.10.2023, registered at P.S. Karol Bagh, for commission of offences under Sections 392/34 IPC. Subsequently, in the charge-sheet, offences under Sections 395/412/120B IPC were added.
2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident of dacoity is of 30.10.2023 and applicant was arrested on the next day only i.e. 31.10.2023. He submits that there are, in all, seven accused persons, and four accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. He, however, submits that role of these accused persons are slightly different as they are not the persons who had committed the dacoity in question. They had, as per prosecution story, either given tip-off or were standing outside for reiki purpose and had not entered inside the office where dacoity had taken place.
3.
Fact, however, remains that as per charge-sheet, there are 30 prosecution BAIL APPLN. 1614/2026 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 28/04/2026 at 11:50:11
witnesses and so far only five witnesses have been examined. 4.
When asked, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that all material public witnesses have already been examined.
5.
Applicant has been residing in Delhi for last eight years, though he is permanent resident of Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh.
6.
Nominal Roll has been received from the Jail Authorities which indicates his actual custody period, as on 27.04.2026, to be 2 years 5 month 27 days and is, reportedly, 27 years of age, with no previous involvement of any nature whatsoever. 7.
Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and also the fact that the period of incarceration of the applicant is around 21⁄2 years and there is no likelihood of trial getting completed in near future and since all material public witnesses have already been examined, without expressing any opinion over the merits of the case, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one 'local' surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of concerned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Judicial Magistrate First Class with the conditions that the applicant would provide his Mobile Number to the concerned I.O and would ensure that such Mobile Number remains active and operational, till the disposal of the case by the learned Trial Court. 8.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
9.
A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court and Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.
MANOJ JAIN, J APRIL 27, 2026/st/js BAIL APPLN. 1614/2026 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 28/04/2026 at 11:50:11