This is an interim order in a pending petition, not a final decision. It stays one direction of the trial court's order until the next date and decides nothing about the underlying proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge; the petition returns to court on 3 February 2027, when the State's reply will be before the court.
- Case
- Maqsood Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Bench
- Girish Kathpalia, J.
- Judgment by
- Girish Kathpalia, J.
- Case numbers
- CRL.M.C. 7915/2026; CRL.M.A. 33242/2026 (stay); CRL.M.A. 33064/2026 (exemption); CRL.M.A. 33065/2026 (exemption)
- Outcome
- Interim order in CRL.M.C. 7915/2026 with CRL.M.A. 33242/2026 (stay): operation of the Additional Sessions Judge's order dated 6 October 2026 stayed only to the extent of recovery of the Rs 5,000 cost from the petitioner, till the next date; stay of the cost imposed on the State refused; State to file a detailed reply or status report at least one week before the next date; relisted on 3 February 2027 in the Advance List. Exemption applications CRL.M.A. 33064/2026 and 33065/2026 allowed, subject to just exception.
The order: salary recovery stayed, cost on the State left standing
On 27 October 2026, Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court passed an interim order in Maqsood Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 7915/2026, staying one part of an Additional Sessions Judge's order dated 6 October 2026 and refusing to stay the rest.
The part stayed is the direction that a cost of Rs 5,000 imposed against the State be recovered subsequently from the salary of the petitioner, who is posted as Director of Prosecution, Tis Hazari, Delhi. That recovery direction is stayed only till the next date. The cost imposed on the State itself is not stayed: the court expressly declined to stay its imposition.
The matter is not over. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, accepted notice and was allowed to file a detailed reply or status report at least one week before the next date, and the petition was relisted on 3 February 2027 in the Advance List.
What the trial court had done, and why
The petitioner challenged the Additional Sessions Judge's order of 6 October 2026, by which a cost of Rs 5,000 was imposed against the State, to be recovered subsequently from the petitioner's salary. The reason recorded for the cost was that, despite repeated passovers till 11:30 am, no public prosecutor appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge.
Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Gupta with Mr. Hemant Gupta, submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge had been informed about the acute shortage of public prosecutors and additional prosecutors and still imposed a cost recoverable from the petitioner's salary. He further submitted that the issue of the shortage of public prosecutors is already pending before a Division Bench of the High Court.
For the State, Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared with the investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Ankit.
The question before the court
The petition, with its stay application CRL.M.A. 33242/2026, asked the High Court to interfere with the 6 October 2026 order. Senior counsel pressed for a stay of the complete impugned order, including the cost imposed against the State, arguing that, since a number of public prosecutors were on leave, appropriate action could not have been taken by the petitioner.
The court therefore had to decide how much of the order to hold in abeyance at the interim stage: the whole order, or only the direction that the cost be recovered from the petitioner's salary.
Why the court split the order in two
The court began by acknowledging the trial judge's position. The impugned order, it said, is a conspicuous expression of anguish of a trial judge who faces pressure from overflowing dockets and the expectation of superior courts for expeditious disposal of bail matters and even trials. That sympathy, however, did not carry the salary-recovery direction.
Directions for recovery of the cost from the petitioner's salary, in the absence of any specific observation regarding any malfeasance or misfeasance, would prima facie not be proper, the court held. That missing element is the core of the interim stay: a personal monetary consequence visited on an individual officer, without a recorded finding about that officer's own wrongdoing, is held back until the matter is heard further.
The cost on the State stood on a different footing. Two reasons drove the refusal to stay it. First, senior counsel had appeared for the petitioner and not for the State, so the prayer to wipe out the State's liability was being pressed by someone who did not represent the party bearing it. Second, the shortage of prosecutors has become a perennial problem that severely impacts the disposal of criminal trials and even bail matters, and there was nothing before the court to show any serious steps being taken by the State. Rather, the court noted, the State has not even challenged the order. On that record, the court said it was not inclined to stay the imposition of cost on the State.
The operative directions, and their limits
The operative part of the order is narrow, and its narrowness is the point. The stay covers the operation of the impugned order only to the extent of recovery of the cost from the petitioner, and only till the next date. It does not quash the trial court's order, does not decide whether the cost was rightly imposed in the first place, and does not stay the cost against the State.
The exemption applications, CRL.M.A. 33064/2026 and 33065/2026, were allowed, subject to just exception. The State's detailed reply or status report is due at least one week before the next date, 3 February 2027, when the petition is listed in the Advance List. What the court does then will depend on that reply and on further argument; nothing in this interim order prejudges it.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: interim stays are surgical, not wholesale
This order is a good example of how interim relief is tailored rather than granted in bulk. A stay application often asks for everything; courts frequently give less, and the reasons for the split matter more than the headline result.
Notice the two different tests the court applied without naming them as tests. For the salary-recovery direction, the court asked whether the impugned order itself contained the factual foundation for a personal consequence: a specific observation about the officer's malfeasance or misfeasance. Finding none, it held the direction prima facie improper and stayed it. For the cost on the State, it asked who was pressing the prayer and what the record showed about the underlying problem: the petitioner was not the State, the prosecutor shortage was long-standing, and the State had not challenged the order or shown serious remedial steps. On that record, the cost stayed.
The lesson for reading interim orders is to track exactly what is stayed, for how long, and what is expressly left untouched. Here, the stayed portion expires by its own terms at the next date, and the unstayed portion continues to operate. Confusing the two would misstate the order entirely.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the High Court stay the recovery of the cost from the petitioner's salary while refusing to stay the cost imposed on the State?
- What missing element did the court identify before salary recovery could prima facie be proper?
- Why did the court treat the petitioner's counsel's appearance for the petitioner, rather than for the State, as relevant to the prayer for a complete stay?
