Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [February 16-22, 2026]

1. [Turkman Gate Stone Pelting Case] Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court on Tuesday granted bail to 12 accused arrested in connection with the Turkman Gate stone-pelting incident that occurred during an anti-encroachment drive on the intervening night of January 6 and 7. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bhupinder Singh allowed the bail applications after hearing submissions from counsel for the accused and the Delhi Police. The FIR in the case was registered at Chandni Mahal police station in January. The court granted bail to Mohammed Imran, Mohammed Adnan, Adnan, Mohammed Naved, Mohammed Ubaidullah, Amir Hamza, Mohammed Aadil, Sameer Hussain, Mohammed Athar, Mohammed Kaif, Mohammed Kashif and Mohammed Areeb on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety of the same amount. Several conditions were imposed, with the court clarifying that any violation would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. While granting relief, the court made pointed observations on the quality of evidence and identification. It noted that the incident arose during a pre-planned and sensitive demolition drive where resistance or confrontation was reasonably foreseeable. In such situations, the court said, objective and technology-assisted documentation becomes crucial.

Case Title: State of Delhi v. Mohd Kashif & Ors.

Bench: ASJ Bhupinder Singh

Click here to read more 

2. [Janakpuri Biker Death Case] A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail pleas of two contractors accused in connection with the death of a 25-year-old biker who fell into an open pit in west Delhi’s Janakpuri, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary and the gravity of the offence could not be overlooked. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Harleen Kaur dismissed the pleas filed by contractors Himanshu Gupta and Kavish Gupta, noting that arrest warrants had already been issued against them and that the investigation was still at a nascent stage. The court observed that the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with documentary evidence could not be ruled out. The case relates to the death of Kamal Dhyani, a 25-year-old private bank employee from Rohini, whose motorcycle plunged into a pit dug by the Delhi Jal Board on the intervening night of February 5 and 6. While rejecting Himanshu Gupta’s plea, the court said his custodial interrogation was required by the investigating agency. It recorded that the FIR stemmed from the “unfortunate death of a young boy in his twenties,” allegedly caused by the contractor’s failure to put in place adequate safety measures at the excavation site.

Case Title: State v. Himanshu Gupta

Bench: ASJ Harleen Kaur

Click here to read more 

3. [Shirtless Protest] A Delhi court has remanded four Indian Youth Congress (IYC) leaders to five days’ police custody in connection with a protest at the AI Impact Summit held at Bharat Mandapam in the national capital. Judicial Magistrate Ravi of the Patiala House Courts allowed the Delhi Police’s plea seeking custodial interrogation of the accused. A detailed order is awaited. The four arrested protesters: Krishna Hari, National Secretary of the IYC from Bihar; Kundan Yadav, IYC State Secretary, Bihar; Ajay Kumar, IYC State President, Uttar Pradesh; and Narasimha Yadav from Telangana, were produced before the court amid heavy security arrangements. According to the prosecution, the accused raised anti-national slogans and wore T-shirts displaying objectionable images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the event. The police informed the court that the matter was “serious” and required custodial interrogation to recover the mobile phones of the accused and to ascertain the larger conspiracy behind the protest. The investigating agency further submitted that the four individuals hail from different states, making custodial questioning necessary to determine the source of funding, the organisation of the protest, and where the T-shirts were printed. The prosecution also alleged that when police attempted to intervene, an effort was made to obstruct them, resulting in injuries to three personnel.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate Ravi

Click here to read more 

4. [Rajpal Yadav] The Delhi High Court has granted interim suspension of sentence to Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav in a cheque bounce case, after noting compliance with its direction to deposit the remaining ₹1.5 crore payable to the complainant. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing Yadav’s plea seeking interim bail, primarily to attend his niece’s wedding scheduled on February 19 in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. During the hearing, in the pre-lunch session, the counsel for Yadav informed the Court that the actor was unconditionally willing to deposit the amount through a fixed deposit receipt. The Bench, however, made it clear that the payment had to be made through a demand draft. The Court recorded that ₹25 lakh had already been deposited earlier in favour of the respondent, and another ₹75 lakh had been submitted previously. The Bench noted that the remaining amount of ₹1.5 crore was yet to be paid and granted time until 3 pm the same day for compliance, making it clear that failure would result in the matter being taken up again the next morning. Later in the day, counsel for the respondent informed the Court that ₹1.5 crore had been credited to the complainant’s bank account by Yadav. Taking note of the submission, the High Court granted interim suspension of sentence to the actor till March 18, the next date of hearing.

Case Title: Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr. v. M/S Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd & Anr.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more 

5. [Land for Job Scam] The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has formally framed charges against former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and former Bihar Chief Minister Rabri Devi in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s Land-for-Job case, paving the way for a full-fledged criminal trial. Special CBI Judge Vishal Gogne framed charges for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both Lalu Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi appeared before the court, denied the allegations, and stated that they would face trial. The court clarified that the accused must appear in person during proceedings unless specifically permitted to join through video conferencing. However, citing age and health concerns, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s daughter Misa Bharti, reportedly said the court had allowed her parents to appear via video conferencing where appropriate. Notably, on January 6, the court had framed charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, son Tejashwi Yadav, Tej Pratap Yadav, Misa Bharti and several others accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. The case arises from a CBI probe into allegations that land parcels were transferred to members of the Yadav family and their associates in return for Group-D appointments in the Railways between 2004 and 2009. Further proceedings in the matter are scheduled to continue before the trial court.

Case Title: CBI v. Lalu Prasad Yadav & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more 

6. [Open Garbage Bin] The Delhi High Court has held that the presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin immediately next to a residential property violates the constitutional right to live with dignity in a clean and healthy environment. Justice Amit Bansal made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a lawyer who complained about the construction of an unauthorised open garbage bin and urinal along the eastern wall of his house. The petitioner contended that nearly 150 residents of the locality were using the open bin for waste disposal and that repeated representations to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had failed to yield any remedial action. The Court noted that the issue raised went beyond mere inconvenience and directly implicated the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. “One of the integral aspects of a healthy life is a hygienic environment. Absence of a healthy environment would frustrate the right of the petitioner to live with dignity,” the Court observed in its order dated February 16. Justice Bansal categorically held that the proximity of an open garbage bin and public urinal to the petitioner’s residence amounted to a nuisance and infringed his constitutional rights. “The presence of a public urinal and an open garbage bin right next to the petitioner’s house clearly violates his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to live with dignity in a clean and healthy environment,” the order stated.

Case Title: Rachit Gupta vs. Govt. of NCT & Ors.

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more 

7. [Unnao Custodial Death Case] The Delhi High Court has declined to extend the interim medical bail granted to Jaideep Singh Senger, one of the convicts in the Unnao custodial death case, and directed him to surrender before the jail authorities by the following day, making it clear that his plea for further extension would be considered only after he returns to custody. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja passed the direction while hearing an application seeking continuation of the interim relief earlier granted to Senger for treatment of cancer. The Court stated that the application for extension would be taken up only after compliance with the requirement to surrender and warned that coercive steps would follow in case of failure to do so. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 24 and a status report has been sought. Senger had been granted interim medical bail in July 2024 to undergo treatment for cancer and the relief was extended from time to time. However, upon the expiry of the last period of interim bail, he did not surrender to custody as required. Taking note of this, the High Court refused to continue the interim protection and directed him to appear before the authorities at Tihar Jail. During the hearing, the Bench indicated that no further indulgence would be shown unless he first complied with the surrender condition. Counsel appearing on his behalf submitted that he would surrender before the jail authorities in terms of the Court’s direction.

Case Title: Jaideep Singh Senger v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more 

8. [Alapan Bandyopadhyay] The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay, declining to revisit its earlier judgment which had upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal to transfer his service dispute from the Kolkata Bench to the Principal Bench in New Delhi. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Jyoti Singh held that there was no merit in the plea seeking review and observed that the petition was devoid of merit. The Court thereby refused to interfere with the judgment delivered on March 7, 2022, which had affirmed the legality of the transfer of proceedings to the national capital. In the review plea, Bandyopadhyay had contended that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to advance his submissions before the matter was reserved for judgment in the earlier round of litigation and that this constituted a procedural ground warranting reconsideration. The Bench, however, found no reason to reopen the concluded judgment. The March 7, 2022 decision had upheld the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the Union government’s transfer petition. The High Court had then held that the transfer was in accordance with law, noting that the disciplinary and inquiry proceedings against Bandyopadhyay were being conducted in New Delhi and that a substantial part of the cause of action had arisen there.

Case Title: Alapan Bandyopadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Jyoti Singh

Click here to read more 

9. [Engineer Rashid Bail Plea] The Delhi High Court has heard preliminary arguments in the regular bail plea filed by Baramulla Member of Parliament Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, who has been in custody since August 2019 in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency alleging a larger conspiracy relating to funding and support for separatist activities and stone pelting incidents in Jammu and Kashmir. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain took up the matter and, after hearing the initial submissions on behalf of the appellant, listed the plea for further hearing on March 11, when the National Investigation Agency is expected to advance its response. Sheikh has been in judicial custody for more than six and a half years in connection with the case, which was originally registered in 2017. Appearing for him, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, along with advocates Vikhyat Oberoi and Nishita Gupta, submitted that the length of incarceration and the pace of the trial justified the grant of regular bail. It was argued that despite the passage of several years since his arrest, the trial has progressed slowly and is unlikely to conclude in the near future. Placing the stage of the trial on record, the defence submitted that out of 378 prosecution witnesses cited by the agency, only 33 witnesses have been examined so far. Also Read - Open Garbage Bin, Presence Of Public Urinal In Residential Area Violates Right To Life: Delhi High Court In view of the large number of witnesses remaining to be examined, it was contended that continued detention would amount to prolonged pre-trial incarceration without a foreseeable conclusion of the proceedings.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. National Investigation Agency

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more 

10. [Age Relaxation] The Delhi High Court has held that ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation to participate in a recruitment process cannot claim consideration against unreserved vacancies on the basis of higher merit, ruling that a candidate who relies on a category-specific concession to cross the eligibility threshold cannot simultaneously seek to be treated as an unreserved candidate for the purpose of shortlisting or selection. Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by ex-servicemen challenging their non-inclusion in the list of candidates called for document verification for recruitment to the posts of Non-Executive cadres in the Northern Region of the Airports Authority of India. The petitioners had contended that despite securing marks higher than the last shortlisted candidate in the unreserved segment, they were not called for document verification and that such exclusion amounted to arbitrariness and merit being ignored. The recruitment in question provided for horizontal reservation for the category of ex-servicemen. The petitioners argued that unreserved vacancies are open to all candidates and must be filled purely on merit irrespective of category. Drawing attention to the document verification list, they pointed out that candidates under the ex-servicemen category were called in descending order of marks ranging from 81 to 66, whereas the cut-off for the unreserved category was 59.

Case Title: Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Click here to read more