Law Aides Only Those Who Abide By Law: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Avoiding Investigation

The Delhi High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to an accused for avoiding investigation in a matter he alleged he was falsely implicated in.

The Court was considering an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Section 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, ".....The law aides only those who abide by law. Admittedly, the applicant has not joined the investigation and NBWs have since been issued against him.....Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the kind of injuries suffered by the complainant as also the fact that applicant is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation, I do not deem it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vivek Sood while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman.

Facts of the Case

Senior Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the FIR is a classic case of a civil dispute, which has been given the colour of criminal wrong. It was submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior property dispute between the complainant’s family and the Applicant’s family. It was further submitted that FIR is a result of vendetta arising out of the Complainant’s efforts to gain an undue advantage by taking over the possession of the ancestral property.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that a Civil Suit was already pending in relation to the suit property, which was later withdrawn by the Applicant’s mother due to a technical defect. It was averred that the incident was stated to be the result of provocation by the complainant, who was illegally constructing a kitchen on the disputed property without any authorization or consent and when the applicant objected, complainant assaulted the applicant’s brother. It was further submitted that the Applicant himself and his mother suffered injuries in the incident, but no cross FIR was registered against the Complainant.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that the nature of injuries suffered by the Complainant are simple in nature and he was discharged from the hospital on the same day and the Applicant is ready to join the investigation and therefore no useful purpose shall be served by sending him to jail.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant suffered deep injuries and the Applicant is not assisting in the investigation and evading arrest.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, noted that the power of grant of anticipatory bail is an exceptional power and should be exercised only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course and reflected on the injuries sustained by the Complainant.

It concluded that although the injuries are of simple nature but Applicant is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation for the recovery of the weapon of offence.

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the kind of injuries suffered by the complainant as also the fact that applicant is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation, I do not deem it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused," the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Ashish Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025:DHC:5136)

Appearances:

Applicant- Senior Advocate Vivek Sood, Advocate Pramod Kumar

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, Advocate Hitesh Kumar

Click here to read. download Order