Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Girish Kathpalia, J
HITESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-3211/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pritish Sabharwal
For the Respondents: Nawal Kishore Jha, Ashwani Kumar, Sunil Sihag

A court dismissing a bail application may direct the police to expedite pending investigation without exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC, as such direction aims to prevent indefinite detention.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Power of court to direct investigation - While dealing with a bail application, a Sessions Court does not exceed its jurisdiction by directing the concerned police officer to monitor and expedite further investigation already mentioned in the charge-sheet, as such direction is not an order under Section 156(3) CrPC but a routine measure to prevent indefinite detention of the accused. (Paras 3-6)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - A court may dismiss a bail application while simultaneously directing the police to complete pending investigation promptly, ensuring that the accused is not kept in custody for perpetuity due to police inaction. (Para 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case, challenged an order of the Sessions Court dated 21.02.2026. In that order, the Sessions Court dismissed his bail application, noting that the charge-sheet itself indicated that investigation regarding the money trail was yet to be conducted. The court directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to monitor further investigation and trace the proceeds from the alleged sale of properties. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising power under Section 156(3) CrPC, and that this direction would adversely affect his bail application.

Findings of Court:
The High Court examined paragraph 23 of the impugned order and held that the Sessions Court had not exercised any power under Section 156(3) CrPC, nor had it directed further investigation. The direction to the DCP was merely to monitor the investigation already pending and to conclude it at the earliest, with the sole aim of ensuring that the petitioner/accused is not kept in jail unnecessarily. The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Sessions Court, while dealing with a bail application, has jurisdiction to direct further investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and whether the impugned order amounted to such an exercise of power.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a direction to the police to monitor and expedite an investigation that is already pending (as stated in the charge-sheet) does not constitute an order under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is a permissible administrative direction intended to prevent the accused from being held in custody indefinitely due to investigative delay.

Result: Petition and accompanying applications dismissed. No costs were imposed despite the frivolity of the petition, considering the petitioner was in jail. (Paras 6-7)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 21.02.2026 of the learned Court of Sessions. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the learned Court of Sessions exceeded its jurisdiction and directed further investigation into the offence. It is contended that while dealing with bail application of the petitioner, the learned Court of Sessions had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 156(3) CrPC. It is further contended that on account of the impugned order, bail application of the petitioner would get adversely decided.

2. Having examined the record, I am unable to accept the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner.

3. It is not that the learned Court of Sessions exercised any power under Section 156(3) CrPC and/or directed further investigation.

4. For a clear understanding, paragraph 23 of the impugned order, which according to learned counsel is the core of the dispute, is extracted below:

“23. In view of the fact that in the charge-sheet itself it has been mentioned that the investigation regarding the money trail is yet to be conducted, this court does not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Consequently the application at hand is dismissed. However, it is also observed here that the applicant cannot be kept in custody for perpetuity while the complainant and the police sleep over the further investigation required to be conducted in this case. Therefore, a copy of the order be sent to the DCP concerned with directions to monitor further investigation in this case and to trace the proceeds from the alleged sale of the properties to the complainant at the earliest.”

5. As is obvious from above extract, the Court of Sessions while dismissing the bail application observed that the present petitioner cannot be kept in custody for perpetuity and the police has to be diligent in completing further investigation for which it had explained in the chargesheet. As explained in the chargesheet, investigation as regards money trail was yet to be conducted and after that supplementary chargesheet had to be filed, the learned Court of Sessions simply directed the concerned DCP to monitor the further investigation and conclude the same at the earliest. The idea was to

ensure that the petitioner/accused is not kept in jail unnecessarily.

6. I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the petition and accompanying applications are dismissed.

7. Although the petition is completely frivolous, cost is not being imposed keeping in mind that the petitioner is in jail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIGirish Kathpalia, JHITESH KUMAR – AppellantVersusTHE STATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentCRL.M.C.-3211/2026

A court dismissing a bail application may direct the police to expedite pending investigation without exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC, as such direction aims to prevent indefinite detention.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Girish Kathpalia, J
HITESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-3211/2026