Rahul Sood v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4577/2025 RAHUL SOOD .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Mr. Garima Narula and Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advs.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State with SI Harsh Vardhan.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
O R D E R
% 11.02.2026 1.
By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 515/2025, registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1)/118(1)/74/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNS').
2.
Brief facts of the present case are that on 11.10.2024, vide DD No. 69A, information was received from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital regarding a case of physical assault. Pursuant thereto, police officials reached the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant. The complainant stated that about one and a half years ago, he and his mother had entered into an agreement with co-accused Goldy Sood for the purchase of a house The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
bearing no. 305/4, situated at Dungar Mohalla, for a total consideration of ₹70 lakhs, pursuant to which a sum of ₹40 lakhs was paid to the said coaccused. However, despite receiving the said amount, co-accused Goldy Sood neither handed over possession of the house nor returned the money. It was alleged that on 11.10.2025, at about 6:30 PM, the complainant, along with his two brothers and maternal uncle Arun Kumar, had gone to Balmiki Mandir, Dungar Mohalla, to paste an information notice regarding the convening of a community Panchayat to discuss the dispute relating to the monetary transaction and the proposed purchase of the house.
As soon as the notice was pasted, co-accused Goldy Sood, Raunak, and Ujjwal, along with other family members present there, had started abusing the complainant and thereafter assaulted the complainant and his family members with sticks, iron rods, and sharp-edged weapons with the intention to kill. In the meantime, the complainant's mother, sister, aunt Manglo, and her son Rahul had reached the spot. Allegedly, the co-accused Ujjwal Sood had struck Rahul on the head with an iron rod, causing him to fall unconscious. Thereafter, the present applicant Rahul Sood had assaulted the complainant and Amit Kumar with a stick, while the complainant's brother Ashu, was also attacked with a sharp weapon, resulting in injuries on his back and other parts of his body.
3.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant Rahul Sood argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is the President of the Bhagwan Shri Maharishi Valmiki Mandir Committee and that the posters were pasted by the complainant's family on the wall of the temple, and objections were raised by the devotees on the same. It is stated that the applicant had merely requested the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
complainant not to paste such posters on the temple wall. It is further contended that no specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR. The learned counsel also argues that the injuries allegedly sustained by the injured persons are simple and blunt in nature. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant herein be granted anticipatory bail. 4.
Per contra, the learned APP for the State argues that the offence in question is serious in nature. It is argued that the applicant/accused used a stick to assault the complainant and another injured person i.e. Amit Kumar, and used a sharp-edged object to cause injuries to Ashu. It is further argued that the applicant/accused is absconding and Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) have been issued against him on 11.11.2025. Additionally, the learned APP contends that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the recovery of the weapons used in causing the injuries to the victims. In view of the above, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be not granted to the applicant herein.
5.
This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, and has perused the material on record.
6.
The allegations against the present applicant are that, along with other co-accused persons, he had assaulted the complainant and inflicted injuries upon him, and also caused injuries to Ashu and Amit Kumar, by using a stick and a sharp-edged weapon.
7.
The injured persons were taken to the hospital for medical examination, and the nature of injuries sustained by them has been recorded in their respective MLCs as follows:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
"(i) Injured Manglu MLC No 4116 dated 11.10.2025 :- Simple/ Sharp (ii) Injured Ashu, MLC No 4117 dated 11.102025 :- Simple / Sharp (iii) Injured Ashish, MLC No 4118 dated 11.102025 :- Simple / Blunt (iv) Injured Rahul, MLC No 4119 dated 11.102025 :- Simple / Sharp (v) Injured Amit Kumar, MC No 4121 dated 11.102025 :- Simple / Blunt"
8.
It is to be noted that the weapon(s) i.e. the stick and the sharp-edged object allegedly used by the applicant and the co-accused persons to cause injuries to the complainant and his family members, have not been recovered till date. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the applicant cannot be ruled out, for the purpose of effecting the said recovery. 9.
Further, it is pertinent to note that the applicant/accused has not joined the investigation, and NBWs have already been issued against him. 10.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant/accused has not joined the investigation and that the weapons used in the commission of the offence are yet to be recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11.
Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. 12.
It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 11, 2026/A RB/GJ The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.