Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [August 31- September 6, 2026]

1. [Satyendar Jain] A Delhi court has granted regular bail to former Delhi Minister Satyender Kumar Jain in a corruption case relating to the tendering and award of contracts for the augmentation of ten Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) run by the Delhi Jal Board (DJB). Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Court passed the order in a bail plea arising out of FIR No. 10/2024 registered at the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), GNCTD, under Sections 7, 7A, 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 420, 409, 418 and 120-B of the IPC. Jain, who was the Minister of Water in the GNCTD and Chairman of the DJB at the relevant time, was arrested on 18 August 2026 along with five other accused; Udit Prakash Rai (A-2), an IAS officer and then-CEO of DJB; Nagendra Yadav (A-3), proprietor of M/s A.N. Enterprises, alleged to have acted as a middleman; Raja Kumar Kurra (A-4), a director of M/s Euroteck Environmental Private Limited; Pankaj Verma (A-5), proprietor of M/s Srijanhar Enterprises and nephew of one Vinod Chauhan, an alleged associate of Jain; and Ankit Srivastava (A-6), a consultant to DJB.

Case Title: State v. Satyender Kumar Jain

Bench: Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh

Click here and here to read more 

2. [Malviya Nagar Hotel Fire] A Delhi Court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the Delhi Police in the Malviya Nagar hotel fire case, in which 22 people, including 13 foreign nationals, lost their lives. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh took cognizance of the chargesheet filed on September 1 against three accused, including Flourish Hotel owner Lovkesh Bajaj. The Court has issued summons to Kesar Negi, who is currently out on bail. Bajaj and Jay Mishra are presently in judicial custody. The matter has been listed for the appearance of the accused persons on September 17. Delhi Police had filed the chargesheet on September 1 against Bajaj, Mishra and Negi in connection with the hotel fire tragedy in Malviya Nagar. Mishra, who has been described as the accountant of Flourish Hotel, was produced from judicial custody. Bajaj is also in judicial custody and is currently hospitalised. Negi was granted bail by the Saket Court on July 27.

Bench: JMFC Bhanu Pratap Singh

Click here and here to read more

3. [IRS Officer's daughter murder] A Delhi court has framed charges of rape, murder and robbery against Rahul Kumar Meena, a former domestic help accused of killing the 22-year-old daughter of a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer at her South Delhi residence in April this year. Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Ankit Singla of the Saket Court framed the charges on Monday. Meena denied the allegations and claimed trial. The court directed that prosecution evidence would commence from September 7. According to the prosecution, Meena had earlier worked as a domestic help for the victim’s family and was familiar with their daily routine. He allegedly entered their residence in Kailash Hills on April 22 using a hidden key after the victim’s parents had left the house. The prosecution has alleged that Meena sexually assaulted and strangled the woman before fleeing with cash, jewellery and mobile phones. Police have alleged that he used a mobile phone charging cable to strangle her.

Click here to read more

4. [Sukesh Chandrashekhar] A Delhi court has sentenced conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to a total of 8 years of rigorous imprisonment for impersonating a sitting Supreme Court judge to pressure a special judge into granting him bail in 2017, directing that the sentences run consecutively rather than concurrently. CJM Harshita Mishra of Tis Hazari Courts, pronounced the order on sentence on 29 August 2026, nine days after convicting Sukesh under Sections 170, 189 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code in her judgment dated 20 August 2026.  The Sentence The court sentenced Sukesh to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 170 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 189 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 507 IPC, with an additional month of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. All substantive sentences were directed to run consecutively, bringing the total custodial term to 8 years.The court held that the case was "a fit and compelling case for consecutive sentences," stating that the nature of the offences, the distinct mischief addressed by each provision, and their cumulative impact on the administration of justice made concurrency inappropriate. It noted that where distinct criminal wrongs are deliberately committed, "each substantial wrong must be adequately reflected in the punishment."

Case Title: State v. Sukesh Chandrashekhar

Bench: CJM Harshita Mishra

Click here to read more

5. [Ajeet Bhati; Anticipatory Bail] A Delhi court has adjourned YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case registered against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast. The anticipatory bail application was listed before Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler. The matter was passed over during the proceedings before being adjourned to September 7. Bharti, who is facing allegations arising from remarks made during a YouTube broadcast, has approached the court seeking protection from arrest in connection with the case. The proceedings concern allegations under the SC/ST Act, with the complainant alleging that Bharti’s remarks were objectionable and attracted offences under the special legislation. The court will now hear Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea on September 7.

Case Title: State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti

Bench: ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler

Click here to read more

6. [Sukesh Chandrashekhar's plea against conviction] The Delhi High Court has fixed November 3, 2026, to hear arguments on the maintainability of a petition filed by Sukesh Chander Shekhar challenging remarks made about him in a trial court judgment convicting him in a Supreme Court judge impersonation case.Court news alerts The development came after Shekhar’s counsel clarified that he was not pressing Prayer A, which sought setting aside of the trial court judgment, but was pressing the remaining prayers, including those seeking relief against what the petition describes as “derogatory, pejorative, stigmatic and unnecessary” observations about his character. The petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. During Monday’s hearing, Shekhar’s counsel told the Court that Prayer A was not being pressed. The Court recorded: “Counsel for the petition submits that at present he is not pressing his prayer clause A.” Counsel nevertheless argued that the remaining prayers could independently be considered by the High Court. He submitted that Shekhar has other cases and that the remarks made in the judgment could have implications in those matters as well.

Case Title: Sukesh Chander Shekhar @ Sukesh v. The State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

7. [Delhi Gymkhana club row] The Delhi High Court has indicated that the Estate Officer under the Public Premises law should first consider whether it ought to proceed with the notice issued against the Delhi Gymkhana Club while the question of his jurisdiction remains pending before the Court.Court ruling summaries The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan hearing the dispute adjourned the matter to enable counsel appearing for the Gymkhana members to obtain instructions on whether they could consent to the Estate Officer first examining the jurisdictional objection before taking further steps against the Club. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, submitted that any response to or appearance before the Estate Officer would be without prejudice to the Club’s fundamental objection regarding jurisdiction. Singhvi also pointed out that the pending suit, in its present form, does not directly concern the Public Premises proceedings. The Court noted that the proceedings had initially involved a notice of re-entry, followed by an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At that stage, a statement had been made that the parties would proceed in accordance with law.

Case Title: Vijay Khurana v. Union of India and connected matters

Bench: Justice Avneesh Jhingan

Click here to read more

8. [Tahir Hussain] The Delhi High Court has issued notice on an appeal filed by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, challenging his conviction in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the 2020 North East Delhi riots. Court proceeding analysis A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan admitted the appeal and directed that it be listed along with two connected appeals arising from the same trial court judgment on December 2, 2026. During the hearing, while counsel was making submissions concerning the appreciation of evidence and Hussain’s alleged role, the Court remarked that the death of Ankit Sharma was an undisputed fact and cautioned counsel against making arguments beyond what was necessary. The Court remarked: "I mean the fact...the fact that he died isn't it, it's a fact isn't it?...a young, young person died in this case." Tahir Hussain Challenges Conviction Hussain’s appeal arises from the final judgment dated July 13, 2026, and the subsequent order on sentence dated July 31, 2026. During Wednesday’s hearing, his counsel argued that Hussain’s role was distinct from that of the other accused and challenged the manner in which the trial court had appreciated the evidence. Counsel particularly disputed the finding regarding Hussain’s presence at the spot, referring to the evidence of PW6 and PW10. It was argued that although the trial court relied upon the witnesses to conclude that Hussain was present, PW6’s cross-examination did not establish his presence at the time of the alleged fight.

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan

Click here to read more

9. [Brother-in- law's murder conspiracy] The Delhi High Court recently granted bail to a woman accused of conspiring to murder her brother-in-law over a property dispute, holding that the absence of any specific role attributed to her in the assault, strangulation or disposal of the victim’s body, coupled with her being a woman and mother of three minor children, weighed in her favour. Court ruling summaries The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan said the latter circumstance assumed significance in view of the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [corresponding to Section 480(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], which contemplates the concession of bail to a woman even in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. The first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC allows courts to consider bail for an accused who is under 16, a woman, sick or infirm, even where the alleged offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Case background Court was dealing with the bail plea filed by one Sunita in a case arising from an FIR registered at K N Katju Marg police station in Rohini under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 103 and Section 238 of the BNS, respectively). The FIR was registered on October 5, 2023, after police received a call about a body lying at a water treatment plant in Haiderpur.

Case title: Sunita v. State of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan

Click here to read more

10. [Section 372 CrPC] The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the corresponding proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that a victim has an independent and unconditional right to appeal against an acquittal. Court proceeding analysis A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected a challenge to the statutory scheme, holding that the victim's right of appeal cannot be equated with the right available to the State or a complainant. The judgment in the matter was reserved on August 21. Challenge to Victim's Right to Appeal The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS. The principal challenge was to the validity of the provision which gives a victim a right to appeal against an order of acquittal, a conviction for a lesser offence, or an order imposing inadequate compensation. The petitioner alternatively sought a declaration that the proviso should apply only to privately instituted complaint cases and not to cases arising out of police investigations and FIRs. The issue arose after the petitioner was acquitted by the Trial Court in a case under Section 509 IPC.

Case Title: Shivdhar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Ors. 

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

 11. [Defamation Case against Saurabh Bhardwaj] A Delhi court has restrained Delhi Cabinet Minister Pravesh Verma, his associates and co-administrators from deleting, hiding, editing or otherwise altering specified social media posts in the defamation case filed by him against AAP leader Saurabh Bhardwaj. The order was passed by ACJM-03, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, Neha Mittal, on September 1, 2026, in the complaint filed by Parvesh Sahib Singh. Court ruling summaries  The court was considering the question of cognizance in the complaint. However, the immediate order concerned an application filed by Saurabh Bhardwaj, the proposed accused, under Section 94 BNSS seeking preservation of digital evidence that is stated to be available on social media accounts belonging to the complainant and his associates.

Case Title: Parvesh Sahib Singh vs Saurabh Bhardwaj

Bench: ACJM Neha Mittal

Click here to read more 

12. [2020 Delhi Riots] A Delhi court recently acquitted 12 accused in a 2020 Delhi riots case concerning the death of one Mursaleen, holding that merely raising slogans such as "Jai Siya Ram" and "Har Har Mahadev" was not sufficient, by itself, to establish communal offences punishable under Sections 153A or 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that the slogans could not be treated as proof of the charged communal offences unless accompanied by acts satisfying the ingredients of the relevant penal provisions. The judgment was delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, North East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, on August 25, 2026. Court news alerts The case involved charges under Sections 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 395, 396, 412, 432, 435, 153A, 505 and related provisions of the IPC. All 12 accused were acquitted of the principal charges, while one Himanshu Thakur was separately convicted under Section 411 IPC. Court on 'Jai Siya Ram', 'Har Har Mahadev' slogans The issue of religious slogans arose specifically while the Court was considering the Sections 153A/505 IPC charges. The prosecution argued that the accused were members of a large armed mob during the riots and that the mob was chanting "Jai Siya Ram" and "Har Har Mahadev" allegedly to incite communal frenzy. The prosecution relied on this circumstance to contend that Sections 153A/505 read with Section 149 IPC were established.

Case Title : State v Lokesh Solanki

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh

Click here to read more