Akshay vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi

Court
Delhi High Court

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 04 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC011035302025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4931/2025
AKSHAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Irshad, Advocate

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP
W/Si Shruti Saini, PS Karol Bagh
Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Adv. (DHCLSC)
with Mr. Nandeesh Nanda and Ms.
Asra H. Rashid, Advs. for Prosecutrix
M: 9711918364
Email:
[email protected]


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”),
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report
nd
(“FIR”) being FIR No. 1270/2025 dated 02 November, 2025, registered at
Police Station (“PS”) Karol Bagh, Central District, Delhi, under Sections
64(1)/75/ 351(2)/123/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
2. The petitioner had previously filed an application for anticipatory bail
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 1 of 10

before the Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
th
Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 29 November, 2025, in Bail
Matters 2210/2025 .
3. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the material on record,
is as follows:
3.1. The present FIR was initially registered under Sections 64(1)/3(5) of
the BNS, based on a complaint submitted by the prosecutrix, wherein, she
alleged that she met the co-accused person, namely, Yash Chaudhary, in July
2025. Since then, she had been in a relationship with him, and he had
promised to be with her for the rest of her life. However, she subsequently
discovered that he had been cheating on her.
th
3.2. On 24 October, 2025, the prosecutrix planned to meet Yash to clarify
matters and arrived at a cafe with her friend. Yash did not turn up, and she
and her friend continued drinking in the meantime.
th
3.3. At around 01:48 AM, on 25 October, 2025, Yash called the
prosecutrix and asked her to come for a party at a hotel located in Karol Bagh.
The prosecutrix was very intoxicated by this time.
3.4. The prosecutrix and her friend booked a cab to travel to Karol Bagh.
Upon arrival, the prosecutrix went to look for Yash and found him along with
the petitioner. Meanwhile, her friend had begun arguing with the cab driver.
They all went over to her, and the petitioner threatened the cab driver by
showing him a pistol, following which the cab driver left the spot.
3.5. Subsequently, the prosecutrix, the petitioner and Yash entered a hotel
that had been booked by the petitioner, while the friend of the prosecutrix
remained lying on the ground in front of an adjacent hotel.
3.6. After entering a room in the hotel, Yash forcefully made the prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 2 of 10

drink alcohol, despite her already being intoxicated. He then had physical
relations with the prosecutrix without her consent.
3.7. The petitioner was not present when the aforesaid incident occurred, as
he had left the hotel to drop off the friend of the prosecutrix. Upon his return,
the petitioner brought with him a drug, namely, MD, which he and Yash
forced the prosecutrix to consume.
3.8. Thereafter, Yash left the prosecutrix alone with the petitioner inside the
room and locked the door. The petitioner took out his pistol and threatened
the prosecutrix, warning her not to misbehave with his brother, Yash, and
stated that he had recently been released from jail and was not scared of
criminal cases. After some time, Yash unlocked the door, and the prosecutrix
came out.
3.9. The prosecutrix then called the police, who found her to be in an
intoxicated state. A medical examination of the prosecutrix was subsequently
conducted, and in her Medico-Legal Case (“MLC”) record, the doctor opined
that she had been “sexually assaulted recently”.
3.10. During the course of investigation, Yash surrendered and was arrested
th
on 20 November, 2025, while the petitioner deliberately absconded from his
residential address and switched off his mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Additional Public Prosecutor
th
(“APP”) for the State has handed over a Status Report dated 13 October,
2025, to this Court, which is taken on record.
5. The following has been stated in the said Status Report:
5.1. A Chargesheet has been filed against the co-accused person, i.e., Yash,
st
on 31 December, 2025, before the Trial Court.
5.2. In the meantime, the petitioner filed the present application, and as per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 3 of 10

st
the directions of this Court, joined the investigation on 31 January, 2026.
5.3. The investigation with regard to the role and involvement of the
petitioner is still ongoing, and a Supplementary Chargesheet shall be filed
upon completion of the investigation.
th
5.4. The pistol allegedly used by the petitioner during the incident on 25
October, 2025, is yet to be recovered.
5.5. During investigation, the manager of the hotel where the incident
occurred provided CCTV footage, which showed the prosecutrix, the
petitioner and Yash entering and exiting the hotel.
5.6. Further, there are two other FIRs registered against the petitioner, i.e.,
FIR No. 329/2020 , registered at PS Patel Nagar, Central District, Delhi, under
Sections 307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Sections
25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”), and FIR No. 601/2020 ,
registered at PS Mangol Puri, Outer District, Delhi, under Sections
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
5.7. Two FIRs have also been registered at the instance of the prosecutrix
against persons other than the petitioner, while one FIR has been registered
against the prosecutrix herself.
5.8. It has been contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
essential for a fair and effective investigation, as the allegations against him
are grave, given that they pertain to a heinous sexual offence.
5.9. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, there is a strong
apprehension that he may hamper the investigation, influence witnesses, and
pose a threat to the prosecutrix.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows:
6.1. The petitioner is a young man, with deep roots in the society and a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 4 of 10

family that includes his aged mother; therefore, there is no apprehension that
he will abscond or misuse the bail granted to him.
6.2. As regards the incident alleged to have occurred by the prosecutrix in
the present FIR, the prosecutrix has nowhere alleged that the petitioner had
forceful physical relations with the prosecutrix, or had the intention of doing
so.
6.3. The petitioner has been premeditatively implicated by the prosecutrix,
who has filed similar cases against other persons in the past.
6.4. The anticipatory bail sought by the petitioner was dismissed by the
Trial Court without giving him an opportunity to join the investigation or
noting his minor alleged role in the incident.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
record.
8. At the outset, it is apposite to set out the scope of the power of this
Court to grant anticipatory bail.
9. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others
Versus State of Bihar and Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 , wherein, the
Supreme Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power and must be exercised with caution in serious cases,
where its grant may result in a miscarriage of justice and significantly hamper
the investigation, as it may lead to tampering with or destruction of evidence.
The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 5 of 10

be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice
and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.
We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom
of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate,
when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant
is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this
will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail
in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then,
person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is
not entitled to such grant.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Furthermore, in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Versus State of
Maharashtra and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Supreme Court has laid
down various factors to be considered while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. The relevant excerpts of the judgment are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be
provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are
clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide
rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all
circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly
visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In
consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of
anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the
Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia case [(1980) 2 SCC 565
: 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] that the High Court or the Court of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 6 of 10

Session has to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438
CrPC by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by
their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do.
In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound
to respect and honour.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the
exact role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact
as to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any
cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by
arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in
cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number
of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available
material against the accused very carefully. The court
must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is
implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the
Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because overimplication in the
cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two
factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the
free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to
the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 7 of 10

and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness
of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail.

113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted
to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is
imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The
court must carefully examine the entire available record and
particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed
to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other
material and circumstances on record.

114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into
consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail
applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they
are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly
visualise all situations and circumstances in which a person
may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised
by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire
material on record then most of the grievances in favour of
grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature
in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this
jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In
consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the
fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any
event, the option of approaching the superior court against the
Court of Session or the High Court is always available.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. With regard to the need for custodial interrogation as a factor affecting
the grant of anticipatory bail, in the case of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157 , it has been held as
under:
“xxx xxx xxx
21. It was sought to be argued that the petitioners have already
joined the investigation and are fully cooperating with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 8 of 10

investigating agency and therefore, there is no need for
custodial interrogation.

22. The petitioners might have been cooperating with the
investigation and they might have been interrogated also by
the investigating agency so far but, at the same time, we
should not overlook the fact that by grant of anticipatory bail,
we may come in the way of the investigating agency if at all it
wants custodial interrogation.

23. As held by this Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar
C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391 that it would be preposterous as a
proposition of law to say that if custodial interrogation is not
required that by itself is sufficient to grant anticipatory bail.
Even in cases where custodial interrogation may not be
required the court is obliged to consider the entire case put up
by the State, more particularly, the nature of the offence, the
punishment provided in law for such offence etc.

24. It is needless to say that for the purpose of custodial
interrogation, the investigating agency has to make out a
prima facie case at the time when remand is prayed for.
Whether any case for police remand is made out or not, it is
for the Court concerned to look into.

25. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view
that we should not come in the way of the investigating agency
at this point of time and the investigation should be permitted
to proceed further.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Having regard to the aforementioned judgments and the submissions
made before this Court, it is noted that investigation is still ongoing with
regard to the role and involvement of the petitioner. This Court notes the
submission made by learned APP for the State that supplementary charge
sheet shall be filed upon completion of investigation in respect of the
petitioner.
13. It is also pertinent to note that the nature and gravity of the alleged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 9 of 10

offences are very serious, including threatening the prosecutrix with a
weapon, i.e., a pistol.
14. In addition, the petitioner has two other FIRs registered against him.
While the mere registration of these FIRs does not establish his guilt, his
antecedents, considered alongside the serious allegations in the present case,
weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail.
15. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
I do not consider this to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
16. The present application is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.
17. Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are solely
for the purpose of deciding the present application, and shall neither influence
the outcome of the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:37:28
Page 10 of 10