Vikas Yadav vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010383532026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026, CRL.M.A. 25327/2026 & 25330/2026
VIKAS YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shri Singh and Mr. Jatan Singh,
Senior Advocates with Ms. Surabhi
Vaya, Mr. Gursimran Narula, Mr.
Nitin Kumar Sharma and Mr.
Lakshay Chauhan, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Kevendra Singh, PS Laxmi
Nagar.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Pankaj
Jaiswal, Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Mr. Karan
Chopra and Mr. Rahul Kanojia,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T
“It is apposite to mention that granting the relief of anticipatory
bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and
sends a message that the law abiding co-accused persons who
stood trial, were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial
and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with
impunity.”
Balmukund Singh Gautam vs State of Madhya Pradesh and
Anr ., (2026) 6 SCC 216
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 1 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
Digitally Signed
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.10.28 16:06:37 +05'30'
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
1. The accused/applicant, a Proclaimed Offender seeks anticipatory bail
in case FIR No. 04/2026 of Police Station Laxmi Nagar for offence under
Section 115(2)/126(2)/329(4)/333/74/351(3)/79/3(5) BNS. I heard both
learned senior counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State. I
also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto and injured persons.
2. Broadly speaking, allegations against the accused/applicant, who is a
practicing advocate, are as follows.
2.1 The father of the accused/applicant is caretaker of a gymnasium being
run by the complainant de facto in the basement of her house .
2.2 On 02.01.2026, six PCR calls were made by the complainant de facto
(Smt. Rita Garg) , her husband (Shri Rajesh Garg) and their son (Vasu Garg)
regarding a quarrel at their premises. The said calls were assigned to SI Shah
Faisal, who reached the spot and found Vasu Garg lying completely naked
on the road. The IO found Vasu Garg so traumatized and shaken that he
could not even speak, but he asked the IO to save his father Rajesh Garg,
pointing towards the gate of their house. On directions of the IO, the support
constable went to the house of the complainant de facto and brought Shri
Rajesh Garg out of the gym. Shri Rajesh Garg also was found injured and
unable to speak. In the meanwhile, the complainant de facto Smt. Rita Garg
also came out of the house. The injured persons were sent for medical
examination and on statement of Smt. Rita Garg, FIR was registered against
accused persons including the present accused/applicant on the allegations
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 2 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:06:25 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
that all of them had brutally assaulted and molested Smt. Rita Garg and her
family members.
2.3 In the course of investigation, it came out that since the year 2012
Smt. Rita Garg has been residing in the subject property, which consists of
ground floor, and a basement. From basement of the said property, a gym
was being run by Smt. Rita Garg and was being taken care of by the co-
accused Satish Yadav, father of the present accused/applicant. The co-
accused Satish Yadav refused to vacate the basement gym and even
occupied the parking space outside residence of the complainant de facto
and demanded money to vacate the same.
2.4 On 02.01.2026, due to blockage of kitchen pipeline and water reverse
flow causing foul smell, the complainant de facto over phone requested the
accused persons to open the basement for repair of the pipeline, but they
refused to do so. When the complainant de facto and her family members
tried to enter the basement, co-accused Shubham assaulted Rajesh Garg and
called the co-accused Satish Yadav and the present accused/applicant to the
spot. The present accused/applicant and the co-accused Satish Yadav on
reaching the spot tried to hit Rajesh Garg with their car, but he saved
himself. Thereafter, the accused/applicant and co-accused persons started
beating Rajesh Garg with kicks. When Smt. Rita Garg tried to intervene, the
accused persons dragged her onto the public road, assaulted, abused and
molested her. The present accused/applicant and co-accused Satish Yadav
dragged Rajesh Garg inside the basement, where they again assaulted him
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 3 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
Digitally Signed 6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.10.28 16:06:14 +05'30'
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
with fists, kicks and even iron rod of the gym, thereby causing injuries on
his head, face, teeth, hands and legs. Thereafter, they were joined in the
basement by co-accused Madhur and all of them after assaulting Rajesh
Garg, forcibly removed all his clothes inside the gym. When Vasu Garg
tried to intervene, the present accused/applicant and the co-accused Satish
Yadav forcibly dragged him onto the road and after assaulting him with fists
and kicks, completely disrobed him, thereby humiliating him in public.
When Vasu Garg was lying completely naked on the road, the co-accused
Madhur hit him with shoe on face with intention to disfigure him.
2.5 The entire incident was captured in CCTV cameras that were installed
outside the premises and inside the gym.
3. At the outset, learned APP submitted that since the accused/applicant
has been declared Proclaimed Offender, the present anticipatory bail
application is not sustainable. In response, learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant argued that there is no blanket proposition that a
Proclaimed Offender cannot be granted anticipatory bail; and that according
to the settled legal position, in exceptional cases, anticipatory bail can be
granted even to a Proclaimed Offender. It was also contended by learned
senior counsel for accused/applicant that since the present anticipatory bail
application is pending, it was improper on the part of the learned magistrate
to declare the accused/applicant Proclaimed Offender.
4. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant, taking me through
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 4 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
Digitally Signed 6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.10.28 16:06:04 +05'30'
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
record contended that the accused/applicant is a practicing advocate and has
no concern with the gym being run by his father. It was also argued that
during pendency of the proceedings under Section 84 BNSS, the
accused/applicant had joined investigation, so there is no risk of his fleeing.
It was argued that there is no CCTV footage showing the present
accused/applicant disrobing Vasu Garg as the accused/applicant reached the
spot subsequent to the alleged disrobing. It was also argued by learned
senior counsel that initially there was no allegation as regards any CCTV
DVR found missing from inside the gym, and that this allegation has
surfaced subsequently only to serve as a pretext for custodial interrogation.
It was also argued that Smt. Rita Garg in the course of her subsequent
statement had also alleged having been raped, but that allegation is not
against the present accused/applicant. Learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant also referred to the medical record and pointed out that
according to MLC, the injury found on Rajesh Garg was on left side of face,
but in the records of the private doctor the said injury was found on right
side of the face, which according to learned senior counsel shows fabrication
of record.
5. Learned APP for State explained the discrepancy of injuries found on
face of Rajesh Garg, pointing out that in MLC the locus of those injuries
was apparently recorded on left side of the face wrongly, but that cannot be
a ground to extend benefit of anticipatory bail. It was also explained that
even the medical opinion obtained from government doctor immediately
after the incident clearly recorded the injury to be on right side of face.
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 5 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:05:54 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Learned APP for State also argued that according to the settled legal
position, anticipatory bail can be granted to a Proclaimed Offender only in
exceptional circumstances, which is not in the present case, as despite being
a practicing advocate, the accused/applicant did join investigation even after
repeated notices followed by non-bailable warrants. It was pointed out that
the accused/applicant has not even challenged the order dated 12.10.2026,
by which he was declared Proclaimed Offender. Learned APP for State
referred to the statements of the complainant de facto and her family
members describing the use of gym rod in the assault. It was submitted that
out of six assailants, four have been arrested and are in judicial custody; and
that out of the two accused persons yet to be arrested, namely the present
accused/applicant and Shubham, the latter has not even sought anticipatory
bail. On instructions of the IO, learned APP submitted that custodial
interrogation of the accused/applicant is required in order to recover DVR of
the basement CCTV.
6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto adopted the arguments
advanced by learned APP for State and took me through record in support of
his contention that the present accused/applicant has been flouting all
notices and even coercive processes with impunity because he is a practicing
advocate. In this regard, learned counsel for complainant de facto also took
me through records to point out the efforts done to locate the present
accused/applicant. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also pointed
out that the accused/applicant even had audacity to record audio visual the
proceedings of his own interrogation inside the police station, which led to
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 6 of 12 pages
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af396
2c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f
Digitally Signed
80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV Date: 2026.10.28 16:05:43 +05'30'
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
Signature Not Verified
suspension of the IO/SI Shah Faisal.
7. In rebuttal arguments, learned senior counsel for accused/applicant
contended that the judicial precedent of Balmukund Singh Gautam vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., (2026) 6 SCC 216, brought to his
notice during arguments is not applicable because in the said case,
anticipatory bail application was filed two years after declaring the accused
Proclaimed Offender, which is not in the present case. Learned senior
counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha
Dubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh , (2024) SCC OnLine SC 5633, in
support of his contention that anticipatory bail can be granted to a
Proclaimed Offender also.
8. To begin with, contention of the learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant is correct that there is no absolute bar on grant of
anticipatory bail to a Proclaimed Offender. What is to be seen is as to
whether the Proclaimed Offender seeking anticipatory bail has been able to
set up exceptional circumstances for grant of such relief. In the case of
Balmukund (supra), the question framed by the Supreme Court was as to
“ whether the High Court, by the Impugned Order, is justified in granting
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC to the accused? ” After
elaborate discussion traversing across multiple judicial precedents, the
Supreme Court held thus:
“44. It is thus a trite position that an absconder is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule, however, in certain
exceptional cases, where on a perusal of the FIR, case diary and
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 7 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
Digitally Signed
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:RAHUL YADAV
Date: 2026.10.28 16:05:34 +05'30'
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
other relevant materials on record, the Court is of the prima facie
opinion that no case is made out against the absconding accused ,
then the power of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised in
favour of the absconding accused. However, no such exceptional
case is made out in favour of the accused as per the documents on
record.”
(emphasis supplied)
What is to be examined in the present case is as to whether this court can
arrive at prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the present
accused/applicant, which can entitle him of anticipatory bail, despite being a
Proclaimed Offender.
9. Going by the above narrated factual matrix alleged in the prosecution
case through statements of the complainant de facto and her family
members, all of whom got injured in the alleged incident, coupled with their
medical record, the following circumstances are of vital significance. The
injured persons were assaulted by not an ordinary rod; according to the
prosecution case it was a gym rod, which is quite heavy and dangerous when
used as a weapon. As per medical records, the injured Shri Rajesh Garg
suffered fracture of right mandible on account of assault with gym rod. In
the present case, much more serious than the physical injuries suffered by
the injured persons is the psychological injury caused by the accused
persons by disrobing two of the injured persons, one of whom was disrobed
in full public glare. The entire incident of assault on Vasu even when he
was lying completely naked on road was captured in CCTV, the footage
whereof was played in this court during one of the hearings. The manner of
assault, as depicted from the same was shocking and barbaric, to say the
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 8 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff
801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:05:25 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
least. While considering the gravity of offence for the purposes of grant or
denial of bail, I am unable to treat the alleged assault merely as hitting the
injured persons with gym rod. The psychological trauma of being
completely disrobed on a public road would take many years for Vasu to
heal.
9.1 During arguments, learned senior counsel for accused/applicant
played heavy emphasis that according to MLC of injured Rakesh Garg, the
injury was found on left side of the face but according to private doctor
opinion, the said injury was found on right side of the face. On this aspect,
the opinion taken by the IO from government doctor was immediately after
the alleged incident and according to the same, the injury was found on right
side of the face. I find substance in the submission of learned APP that the
locus of injury recorded in the MLC was apparently under a
miscommunication created on account of the injured positioned in front of
the doctor. That can be ascertained during full dress trial only and cannot be
a ground to grant anticipatory bail, that too to a Proclaimed Offender.
10. During arguments, learned senior counsel for the accused/applicant
also projected that the accused/applicant being a practicing advocate in
itself is a circumstance favouring grant of anticipatory bail. Of course, all
advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect. But that tenet cannot
be extended to an advocate, who indulges in such brazen lawlessness, that
too publicly and with such impunity. The accused/applicant not only
participated in the assault of the injured persons, but also had the audacity to
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 9 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709
96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
Digitally Signed
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:05:15 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
tape record in audio visual form his own interrogation in the police station,
that too when he was already under non-bailable warrants, though
proceedings under Section 84 BNSS had been stayed. Resultantly, a
departmental enquiry has been initiated against the earlier IO/SI Shah Faisal
and he has been suspended, because despite the non-bailable warrants being
alive, he did not arrest the accused/applicant after interrogation. That amply
establishes his mindset of exhibiting might of being an advocate.
11. Further, as reflected from record, in an effort to trace out the
accused/applicant, raids and searches were conducted by the IO at different
locations on 03.01.2026, 05.01.2026, 09.01.2026, 10.01.2026, 12.01.2026,
17.01.2026, 20.01.2026, 21.01.2026, 27.01.2026 and 08.02.2026. Efforts
were also made to trace out his location on the basis of Call Details Records
from places including outside Delhi. Even the non-bailable warrants could
not be executed against the accused/applicant, so proceedings commenced
under Section 84 BNSS against him. Those proceedings were stayed by the
concerned magistrate, but despite there being no stay on operation of non-
bailable warrants, the earlier IO/SI Shah Faisal allowed the
accused/applicant to go back after an audio visual recorded charade of
interrogation, for which the IO is facing consequences. But it also shows
scant regard for law in the mind of the accused/applicant under the mistaken
impression that being an advocate, he cannot be arrested.
12. Therefore, it is neither a matter of exceptional circumstances where a
practicing advocate be extended indulgence of anticipatory bail despite his
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 10 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af
3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
Digitally Signed b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:04:57 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
being a Proclaimed Offender nor it is a case of there being prima facie no
offence made out against him.
13. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant that on account of pendency of this anticipatory bail
application, it was improper on the part of the learned magistrate to declare
the accused/applicant Proclaimed Offender. Admittedly, there was no stay
on the proceedings pending before the learned magistrate to declare the
accused/applicant Proclaimed Offender. Rather, the accused/applicant had
not even sought in the present proceedings any directions to the concerned
magistrate not to proceed with declaring him a Proclaimed Offender. There
being no explicit order staying the proceedings before the learned
magistrate, the order dated 12.10.2026 declaring the accused/applicant a
Proclaimed Offender was perfectly lawful.
14. Then comes the issue of requirement of custodial interrogation, as
submitted by the IO. As mentioned above, there are specific allegations of
the injured persons that the injured Rajesh Garg was dragged inside the gym
where he was beaten up with the gym rod and was completely disrobed in
full view of the CCTV installed inside the gym. But DVR of that gym
CCTV has been removed by the accused persons. In order to recover that
DVR of the gym CCTV, the requirement of custodial interrogation is
genuine, in my view. That also is a factor for which anticipatory bail cannot
be granted to the accused/applicant.
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 11 of 12 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
Digitally Signed 6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:04:48 +05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
15. To conclude, the accused/applicant is a Proclaimed Offender and it is
not a case where prima facie no offence is made out against him, which is
the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Balmukund (supra), and his
being a practicing advocate does not make it to be an exceptional case on
account of his conduct described above at length. Grant of anticipatory bail
in such circumstances would convey wrong signals to the society at large
that being a practicing advocate can be a license to indulge in such brazen
lawlessness and would erode the public confidence in the rule of law.
Therefore, this anticipatory bail application and the accompanying
applications are dismissed.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.28 16:04:36 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ ry
BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026 Page 12 of 12 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:28.10.2026
16:07:08