Delhi High Court Grants Bail in ₹6.39 Lakh Robbery Case; Notes Unexplained FIR Delay and Parity With Co-Accused Already Granted Bail or Protection
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to ₹6.39 Lakh Robbery Accused; Notes Co-Accused Already Secured Regular Bail and Interim Protection From Arrest
Facts
The petitioner, Nicky Kumar Sharma, sought regular bail in FIR No. 267/2026 registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar for offences under Sections 309(1), 309(4), 310(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, on 6 May 2026, the petitioner and two co-accused allegedly robbed the complainant of ₹6,39,640. The complainant was carrying the money bag while riding a moped when the three accused allegedly approached on a motorcycle, kicked the moped causing him to fall, and fled with the money bag.
The FIR, however, was registered on 8 May 2026, two days after the alleged occurrence. The petitioner relied upon this delay as well as the relief already granted to his co-accused.
Issues
The principal issue was whether Nicky Kumar Sharma should be granted regular bail in the robbery case.
The Court was required to consider the effect of:
- the alleged unexplained two-day delay in registration of the FIR;
- regular bail already granted to co-accused Sudhanshu;
- interim protection from arrest granted to co-accused Karan Kumar in anticipatory bail proceedings; and
- the State’s concession that there was no serious objection to bail considering parity.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that although the alleged incident occurred on 6 May 2026, the FIR was lodged only on 8 May 2026, and no explanation had been furnished for this delay.
He further relied upon parity with the co-accused. Co-accused Sudhanshu had already been granted regular bail, while Karan Kumar had obtained interim protection against arrest during the hearing of his anticipatory bail application.
On these circumstances, the petitioner sought his release on regular bail.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State did not seriously oppose the application.
The learned APP expressly submitted that there was “no serious objection” to the grant of bail, considering the parity between the petitioner and the co-accused who had already obtained bail or interim protection.
Thus, unlike a contested bail application, the prosecution did not seek to materially distinguish the petitioner’s role from that of the co-accused.
Analysis of the Law
The judgment is principally an application of the parity principle in bail jurisprudence.
Where similarly situated co-accused have already received bail or comparable protection, the Court may consider whether continued detention of another accused is justified by any distinguishing circumstance.
Here, the Court had before it two relevant developments:
Sudhanshu had already received regular bail, while Karan Kumar had obtained interim protection from arrest in his anticipatory bail proceedings.
Importantly, the prosecution itself did not identify any serious distinguishing circumstance warranting continued detention of Nicky Kumar Sharma. Instead, the State accepted that parity supported the grant of bail.
Delay in FIR
The petitioner additionally relied upon the two-day gap between the alleged occurrence and registration of the FIR.
The judgment records his submission that the delay was unexplained. However, the Court does not separately analyse or make an express finding that the FIR delay was fatal to the prosecution case.
Accordingly, the delay is best understood as one of the circumstances placed before the Court rather than an independent legal ground expressly adjudicated in the order.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite any reported judicial precedent concerning regular bail, parity, delay in lodging the FIR or personal liberty.
The Court resolved the bail application directly on the facts before it, particularly:
- relief already granted to the co-accused;
- the State’s lack of serious opposition; and
- the overall circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s continued custody.
Therefore, no external precedent should be attributed to the Court beyond what is expressly recorded in this short oral judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court adopted a concise approach.
It noted the petitioner’s reliance upon the delay in lodging the FIR and, more importantly, the fact that his two co-accused had already received significant liberty-based relief.
One co-accused had been granted regular bail, while the other had obtained interim protection against arrest.
The prosecution itself stated that, considering parity, it had no serious objection to granting the petitioner bail.
Considering these circumstances cumulatively, Justice Girish Kathpalia held that there was no reason to deprive the petitioner of further liberty and consequently allowed his bail application.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed Nicky Kumar Sharma’s regular bail application in the ₹6.39 lakh robbery case.
The order was substantially influenced by parity: one co-accused had already been granted regular bail and another had received interim protection from arrest, while the State raised no serious objection to extending bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹15,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Case Details
Case: Nicky Kumar Sharma v. The State
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3546/2026; CNR No. DLHC010401722026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 25 August 2026
Result: Regular bail granted. Petitioner ordered to be released on a ₹15,000 personal bond with one surety of like amount.
