Mohd Sameer vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: September 03, 2026
% Pronounced on: September 09, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010170112026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1554/2026

MOHD SAMEER .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. H. Rehman, Mr.
Sabeel Ahmad and Ms. Deepti
Sagar, Advs. (through VC)
Versus


THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP with SI
Muskan, PS Jhangir Puri
Mr. Sinha, Adv. for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present application under Section 482 of the
1
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the applicant seeks grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No.0007/2026 dated 09.01.2026 at PS.: Jahangir
2
Puri, Delhi under Sections 75/79/316(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
2. Succinctly put , it is the case of the prosecution that on 09.01.2026 the
complainant lodged a complaint stating that her marriage with the applicant
herein was solemnized on 22.06.2025 and at the time of engagement

1
Hereinafter referred to as “ BNSS ”
2
Hereinafter referred to as “ BNS ”
BAIL APPLN. 1554/2025 Page 1 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:49:45

jewelry approximately worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, and Rs. 80,000/- (cash), as
also other articles were given to the applicant and his family. Thence, on
30.08.2025 the complainant received a phone call from a girl claiming to
be the applicant’s girlfriend. Upon confronting the applicant, he abused the
complainant and refused to marry her. He then also failed to return the
jewelry, cash and other articles despite repeated demands. In fact,
previously around June, the applicant had gone to the house of the
complainant and whence no one was around, he had forcefully hugged the
complainant against her will.
3. Subsequently, despite two notice(s) under Section 35(3) of the BNSS
being served upon the family of the applicant during investigation, the
applicant failed to join the investigation. In fact, since the applicant was
3
intentionally evading the investigation, Non-Bailable Warrants were
issued against the applicant on 11.03.2026, and though a raid was
conducted on 24.03.2026 at his residential address, he was not found
therein.
4. Thereafter, in the present application, the applicant and the
complainant were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and
4
Conciliation Centre , which did not yield any result, however, the applicant
has joined investigation on a date other than the one designated by this
Court.
5. In this factual backdrop, this Court has heard learned counsels for the
applicant and the complainant as also the learned APP, and has also
perused the materials on record.

3
Hereinafter referred to as “ NBWs ”
4
Hereinafter referred to as “ DHCMCC ”
BAIL APPLN. 1554/2025 Page 2 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:49:45

6. The facts herein disclose that though there is a delay of around six
months in registration of the present FIR, however, the contents thereof
reflect that there were undenied talks of marriage inter-se the applicant and
the complainant, which, in fact, resulted in them both being engaged to
each other during the time of the incident. The contents of the FIR also
include the aspect pertaining to recovery of some articles/ items allegedly
involved. What are those articles/ items require due investigation, which is
at a very nascent stage, and subsequent trial as well. For all the above,
custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much required. The facts
herein reflect that the applicant has admittedly been evading joining and/ or
participating in the investigation as and when called for, which has also
resulted in issuance of the NBW against him, more so, since he was not
found at his own residence as well.
7. It is also relevant to bear in mind that the present, at the end of the
day, is an application wherein the applicant is seeking grant of an
anticipatory bail, which, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
5
Haryana v. Dharamraj ought to be granted sparingly whilst keeping in
mind the germane variables, such as the specific role attributed and
possibility of absconding amongst others.
8. In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, there might also be
chances of the applicant misusing the grant of anticipatory and/ or trying to
tamper with the evidence and/ or derailing the investigation and/ or
influencing the witnesses given his conduct.

5
(2023) 17 SCC 510
BAIL APPLN. 1554/2025 Page 3 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:49:45

9. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the present application wherein the
applicant is seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.
10. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are
solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall
have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/rr
BAIL APPLN. 1554/2025 Page 4 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:09.09.2026
17:49:45