Shri Amit Kumar @ Dabboo v. State NCT of Delhi

Bail Appln. 2304/2026 | Decided: 2 September 2026 | Justice Manoj Jain

Facts: The applicant was facing trial for offences under Sections 364A, 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC arising from the kidnapping and murder of two minor children in 2013. He had remained in custody for more than 13 years. Despite an earlier direction of the Court in 2022 to expedite the trial, it remained incomplete.

Issue: Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial justified grant of bail despite the gravity of the alleged offences.

Decision: The Court granted bail, holding that the seriousness of the offence cannot eclipse the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21. It observed that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot continue indefinitely and granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Also Read – Most Important Calcutta High Court Judgments of September 2026

Union of India & Ors. v. Mithai Lal & Ors.

W.P.(C) 7973/2018 & connected matter | Decided: 8 September 2026 | Justices C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla

Facts: The respondents were commission-based bearers and vendors working with the North Eastern Railway who sought regularisation. The Central Administrative Tribunal had directed their regularisation and payment of minimum pay-scale benefits and allowances. The Union of India challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.

Issue: Whether the Tribunal’s directions granting regularisation and consequential monetary benefits to the commission-based railway workers warranted interference.

Decision: The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the Tribunal’s directions. It noted that the workers had been litigating for decades despite Railway Board policies and earlier judicial directions favouring their absorption. The Court emphasised that the law declared by superior courts must be implemented and directed compliance with the Tribunal’s order, including payment of costs.

Also Read – Most Important Karnataka High Court Judgments of September 2026

Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency

Crl.A. 676/2024 | Decided: 14 September 2026 | Justices Navin Chawla & Ravinder Dudeja

Facts: The appellant was prosecuted under provisions of the IPC, UAPA and Explosive Substances Act in an NIA case. He had been in custody since 26 December 2018 and had therefore spent almost eight years in incarceration. Several prosecution witnesses relevant to the appellant had already been examined, while the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.

Issue: Whether prolonged incarceration and an unlikely conclusion of trial justified bail despite the restriction under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

Decision: The Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions. Relying upon Article 21 and Supreme Court precedent, it held that Section 43D(5) does not completely exclude constitutional courts’ power to protect the right to speedy trial. Prolonged detention must be assessed in the circumstances of each case, including the progress of trial and period already undergone.

Dr. Manish Kamra v. Union of India & Ors.

W.P.(C) 12457/2026 | Decided: 15 September 2026 | Justice Jasmeet Singh

Facts: The petitioner, a government doctor, qualified NEET-SS 2025 and was allotted a DNB Super Speciality seat in Cardiology. He sought extraordinary leave to pursue the course. The authorities opposed the request because he had earlier availed study leave and remained bound by a service bond requiring him to serve the Government for the prescribed period.

Issue: Whether extraordinary leave could be granted where the Government’s financial and service interests could be protected through appropriate undertakings and safeguards.

Decision: The Court directed the authorities to sanction the leave subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking/indemnity regarding the balance bond period and an undated cheque for the stipulated amount. The Court observed that although the right to pursue higher education is not expressly declared a fundamental right, it cannot be curtailed lightly. The order was based on the peculiar facts of the case.

Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.

W.P.(C) 11021/2025 | Decided: 18 September 2026 | Justices Anil Kshetarpal & Shail Jain

Facts: GST authorities searched the premises of advocate Puneet Batra and seized his CPU and documents during an investigation concerning M/s Martkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner challenged the search, arguing that his computer contained communications protected by advocate-client privilege and confidential material belonging to other clients.

Issue: Whether advocate-client privilege prevented the GST authorities from investigating and seizing material where there was prima facie material indicating the advocate’s own involvement in the affairs under investigation.

Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that privilege protects genuinely confidential professional communications but cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into an advocate’s own conduct. The search was validly authorised under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. However, safeguards were required to protect unrelated clients’ confidential material. The Court clarified that the ruling did not authorise unrestricted searches of advocates’ premises.

Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency

Crl.A. Nos. 493/2023 & connected matters | Decided: 18 September 2026 | Justices Navin Chawla & Ravinder Dudeja

Facts: Jagtar Singh Johal faced several NIA cases involving allegations of conspiracy and murder-related offences. He had remained in custody for more than eight years. The matters had earlier been before the Supreme Court, which remitted the appeals to the High Court for consideration on merits. The prosecution case involved several witnesses and the trial had not progressed sufficiently.

Issue: Whether prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of the trial justified bail despite the serious UAPA-related allegations.

Decision: The Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions. Applying the Article 21 speedy-trial principle, it held that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA must be harmonised with constitutional guarantees where prolonged incarceration and trial delay become disproportionate. Conditions included restrictions on travel, use of communications and social media, regular reporting and conduct during the trial.

Union of India & Ors. v. Himanshi & 34 Ors.

W.P.(C) 15273/2025 | 2026 DHC 8237-DB | Decided: 24 September 2026 | Justices C. Hari Shankar & Vinod Kumar

Facts: Himanshi’s SSC examination candidature was cancelled and she was debarred for seven years after an unfair-means committee concluded that she had resorted to malpractice. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the action, finding insufficient material against her individually. The Union of India and SSC challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.

Issue: Whether the available evidence was sufficient to establish Himanshi’s individual involvement in unfair means and justify the severe penalty imposed upon her.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It found that the material relied upon by the authorities did not adequately establish Himanshi’s individual involvement. The Court noted, among other circumstances, that her shifted terminal was not identified as one of the compromised terminals. It cautioned against adopting a “one size fits all” approach and held that individual disciplinary consequences must rest upon legally sustainable material establishing the allegation against the particular candidate.

Punam v. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

W.P.(C) 11683/2022 | Decided: 30 September 2026 | Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya & Justice Tejas Karia

Facts: The petitioner, a daughter-in-law, challenged an order directing her to vacate her mother-in-law’s property under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. She also challenged the validity of the Rule and relied upon her right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act.

Issue: Whether Rule 22(3)(1) validly permits eviction of a daughter-in-law and whether such proceedings can continue despite a residence claim under the Domestic Violence Act.

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of Rule 22(3)(1)(i) and (iv). It held that the Rule permits eviction proceedings against a daughter-in-law and that such proceedings are independent of maintenance proceedings. The Court also held that her right to reside in the shared household was not indefeasible and had to be balanced against the senior citizen’s right to live peacefully.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications