Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [June 8- June 14, 2026]

1. [Fake ED raid case] A Delhi court has granted bail to Pooja Rajput, one of the accused in a case involving an alleged fake Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at the residence of an 86-year-old retired architect in New Friends Colony, observing that the investigation against her had been completed and no useful purpose would be served by keeping her in custody. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vinod Joshi of the South-East District, Saket Courts, passed the order on June 11 while allowing Rajput's bail application. The case stems from an incident reported in February this year, when three men allegedly posed as Enforcement Directorate officials and entered the residence of RC Sabharwal, a retired senior architect, in New Friends Colony. According to the prosecution, the accused intimidated members of the household, seized their mobile phones, and directed them to place jewellery and cash on a table during what was presented as an official ED search operation.

Case Title: State v. Pooja Rajput

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Vinod Joshi

Click here to read more 

2. [Tinder Honey Trap] A Delhi Court has refused bail to a man accused of allegedly duping a Haryana judicial officer of more than ₹52 lakh through what the Court described as a pattern “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap” that allegedly began on the dating application Tinder. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, of Karkardooma Court while dismissing the bail plea of accused Deepak Vats, made a series of sharp observations regarding the conduct of the accused, the complainant, and the investigation carried out by the Delhi Police Special Cell. The Court noted that although the FIR was registered in the name of Diksha Devi, a domestic worker, the financial trail revealed that the actual victim appeared to be a serving judicial officer from Haryana. “A matter that ought to be relatively straightforward, a cyber fraud case with a clear digital money trail, has been complicated, obfuscated and rendered murky by the conduct of all three protagonists: the accused, the victim and the investigating officer,” the Court observed. According to the prosecution, the FIR was lodged on the complaint of Diksha Devi, who alleged that she had been cheated through an online dating application and lost ₹52,81,999. However, after examining the record, the Court found that almost every transaction forming the basis of the alleged fraud originated from bank accounts belonging to a Haryana judicial officer, not from the complainant's account.

Case Title: State v. Deepak Vats

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Partap Singh Laler

Click here to read more

3. [Domestic Violence Case] A Delhi Court has granted interim protection to Haryanvi singer and actor Sapna Choudhary in a domestic violence case, restraining her husband, singer-composer Yashveer Sahu, from contacting, approaching, or visiting her residence and workplace until further orders. Judicial Magistrate Nidhi Singh of the Dwarka Courts passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Choudhary under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court also barred Sahu from committing any act of domestic violence against her and directed the police to ensure strict compliance with its directions. Choudhary approached the court through Advocate Preeti Singh, alleging that Sahu had subjected her to domestic violence and continued to pose a threat to her safety and professional commitments. She informed the court that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home because of his conduct and is presently residing at her parental home in Najafgarh, Delhi. Seeking urgent intervention, Choudhary expressed apprehension that Sahu could attempt to threaten, harass, or harm her reputation, particularly in light of the release of her upcoming film Momacu. Her counsel argued that the denial of immediate protection could expose her to irreparable harm and adversely affect her dignity, safety, and professional career.

Case Title: Sapna v. Yashveer Sahu

Bench: Judicial Magistrate Nidhi Singh

Click here to read more

4. [Malviya Nagar Fire Tragedy] A Delhi Court has remanded hotel owner Lavkesh Bajaj and accountant Jay Mishra to 12 days of judicial custody in connection with the devastating Malviya Nagar hotel fire that has claimed 22 lives. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh of the Saket Courts allowed the Delhi Police's plea for judicial custody, observing that the investigation remains at a crucial stage and that serious allegations carrying the possibility of life imprisonment have been levelled against Bajaj. “Considering that the investigation is at the initial stage and there are serious allegations against the accused Lavkesh Bajaj for the commission of offence punishable with imprisonment for life, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds are made out for sending the accused in judicial custody,” the Court noted. It added that such custody was necessary to ensure a proper investigation and to prevent any possibility of witness influence. The Court directed Delhi Police to produce both accused before it on July 22 upon completion of the remand period. Notably, on June 4, the Court had remanded Bajaj to four days of police custody in connection with the devastating fire at a guest house in South Delhi's Malviya Nagar. During the hearing on Wednesday, on a request made by Bajaj’s counsel, the Court also directed the Jail Superintendent to consider his medical prescriptions and provide appropriate treatment in accordance with prison rules. Bajaj was permitted to carry his medical records to jail.

Bench: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh

Click here to read more

5. [Abhijit Iyer Mitra] A Delhi court has thrown a temporary wrench into efforts to initiate criminal proceedings against political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, holding that there is “no exigency” to register an FIR before hearing his defence. In a dispute centered around allegedly offensive social media posts targeting NewsLaundry Managing Editor Manisha Pande, the Saket Court observed that the controversial content was in the form of shayari, that no individual was specifically named, and that the meaning of the words would require closer judicial scrutiny before the criminal law could be set in motion. "...it stands revealed that the objectionable material (documentary in nature) claimed to be basis of complaint is in knowledge and possession of both the parties and identity of the revisionist/accused is well established and is not in dispute. Furthermore, the alleged derogatory words are in form of shayari but no individual has been specifically named therein and the meticulous interpretation of the words and sentences used can only be done after hearing both the parties on merits on the revision petition. Even otherwise, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/complainant, in case, the operation of the impugned order is stayed till final disposal of the revision petition on merits, " Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak noted in his order.

Case Title: Abhijit Iyer Mitra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purushottam Pathak

Click here to read more

6. [Anjana Om Kashyap Defamation Case] The Delhi High Court has heard a defamation suit filed by journalist Anjana Om Kashyap and TV Today Network against educators Faisal Khan, popularly known as Khan Sir, and others over remarks allegedly made in connection with Kashyap's coverage of "star teachers". Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed that notice be served upon all the defendants and listed the matter for further hearing on June 17, 2026. When Kashyap's counsel pressed for an interim order restraining the defendants from further disseminating the alleged defamatory remarks, the court observed that it would first hear all parties before considering any interim relief. During the hearing, counsel appearing for Kashyap submitted that the educators had used highly abusive language against her and that their statements amounted to an attempt to incite violence against her. It was further contended that the remarks had also targeted Kashyap's children. Opposing the plea, counsel for the educators raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit, arguing that no specific defamatory statement had been attributed to any individual defendant. The educators further contended that their remarks were made in response to comments allegedly made by Kashyap about coaching teachers during a programme aired on a news channel. As the defendants' response was not yet on record, court declined to grant any interim relief at this stage.

Case Title: Anjana Om Kashyap and Another vs Faisal Khan and Others

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

7. [Targetting Sitting Judge] The Delhi High Court has directed major social media platforms to remove videos and posts containing allegations against a sitting High Court judge in connection with the recent Saket building collapse, observing that such content appeared aimed at scandalising the judiciary and could not be allowed to remain online indefinitely. A division bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain passed the direction while hearing a criminal contempt petition filed by the Delhi High Court Bar Association against one Dr. Kapil Kakar, who had uploaded a series of videos and posts following the Saket tragedy. Delhi High Court Bar Association Files Criminal Contempt Plea Against Kapil Kakar The May 30, 2026 collapse, which claimed the lives of six young doctors and two software engineers, had triggered widespread outrage and renewed scrutiny of building safety, municipal oversight and regulatory enforcement in the national capital. However, the controversy took a different turn after Kakar published social media content alleging that the disaster was not merely the result of administrative failures but was linked to judicial conduct. In his posts, Kakar claimed that warnings regarding allegedly unsafe construction activities had previously been brought before the Delhi High Court. He further alleged that a sitting judge had failed to intervene despite being apprised of the situation and suggested that the deaths were attributable not only to civic authorities but also to judicial action. Some of the videos reportedly went further, describing the judge as the “real criminal” behind the incident and questioning whether he should face imprisonment or even capital punishment.

Case Title: Delhi High Court Bar Association vs Dr. Kapil Kakar and Others

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

8. [Newsclick] In a major relief to digital news platform NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha, the Delhi High Court has quashed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) FIR registered against them in 2020 as well as the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) money laundering case arising from it, holding that the allegations failed to disclose offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed the judgment on May 29 while allowing three connected petitions filed by M/s PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. and Purkayastha challenging FIR No. 116/2020 registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing and the subsequent ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The FIR had been registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on allegations that NewsClick received foreign direct investment (FDI) from a US-based entity, Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, through an allegedly inflated share valuation structure. The ED subsequently registered a money laundering case on the basis of the FIR.

Case Title: M/S PK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors and connected matters

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

9. [Online trolling of Saket Judge; Newslaundry case] The Delhi High Court has observed that remedies under the law of contempt remain available if a judicial officer believes online comments against him amount to interference with the administration of justice, while hearing concerns regarding alleged trolling of a Saket Court judge following his order staying directions for registration of an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations after Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who appeared for Iyer-Mitra before the trial court, brought to the Court's notice that the concerned judicial officer had allegedly been subjected to coordinated trolling on social media after passing the stay order. Billimoria submitted that several online posts described the judge as a "pathetic judge" and referred to the judiciary as a "rotten institution" following the order. Referring to a June 9 media report on the proceedings, he argued that while the report itself accurately recorded the court's observations, certain users had taken those observations out of context and launched personal attacks against the judge online.

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Click here to read more

10. [Malviya Nagar Fire; Suo moto cognizance] In the aftermath of the devastating Malviya Nagar hotel fire that claimed 21 lives, a Delhi-based advocate has written an open letter to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court urging the Court to take suo motu cognisance of the tragedy and oversee a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances leading to the incident. Advocate Bhavishya Shakya, in a detailed representation addressed to the Chief Justice, sought judicial intervention to ensure a fair, independent and time-bound probe into the fire, while also calling for accountability of both private actors and public authorities responsible for enforcing safety regulations. The letter describes the incident as a preventable tragedy that has exposed serious concerns regarding enforcement of fire safety norms, licensing requirements and regulatory oversight in the national capital. According to the representation, the incident raises critical questions regarding whether the establishment possessed valid fire safety approvals, occupancy permissions and statutory licences, and whether mandatory inspections were conducted by the competent authorities. It further seeks examination of whether any safety violations were ignored or allowed to continue despite awareness of potential risks. The advocate argued that accountability should not be limited to the owners or operators of the premises but should also extend to public officials and agencies tasked with ensuring compliance with safety standards. The letter specifically calls for scrutiny of the role played by the Delhi Fire Service, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Police, licensing authorities, district administration and other regulatory bodies having jurisdiction over the premises.

Click here to read more

11. [UAPA Bail] Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have approached a Delhi court seeking regular bail in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 North East Delhi riots, registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Vacation Judge Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi of the Karkardooma Courts on Thursday issued notice on their bail applications and sought a response from the Delhi Police. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 4. The fresh bail pleas have been filed after a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court recently raised questions regarding the interpretation adopted while denying bail to the two accused in the case. The case arises out of FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the communal violence that erupted in North East Delhi in February 2020. The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with offences under the UAPA.

Bench: ASJ Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi

Click here to read more