Chand Malik v. The State of NCT of Delhi

O R D E R %

18.11.2025

¶1Learned Counsel for the Applicant seeks permission to withdraw the Bail Application. However, submits that some directions be given for recording of evidence in a time bound manner.

¶2Learned Prosecutor for the State submits that the delay in completing the evidence was on account non-availability of FSL and the case property for which, several priority letters had been sent by the learned ASJ. It is further submitted that the FSL Report and case property had been submitted vide supplementary Chargesheet in January, 2025. The steps are now being taken to expedite the recording of evidence.

¶3It is further submitted that this case is not based on circumstantial evidence, but on the statement of two eye-witnesses.

¶4In view of the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant, he is permitted to withdraw the present Bail Application with direction to the learned Trial Court to make an endeavour to complete the Prosecution This is a digitally signed order. evidence, preferably, within one year.

¶5The Bail Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶6Copy of this Order be sent to the learned Trial Court.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2025 N This is a digitally signed order.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3164/2025 CHAND MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav and Mr. Sauraj Yadav, Advocates versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Ranbir Singh, PS Adarsh Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA