Vijay Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)

$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 04 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010516532026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4575/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33736/2026
VIJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Mr.
Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Chandra Mohan
Khatana, Mr. Akhil G., Mr.
Abhimanyu Singh and Ms. Jiya
Gandhi, Advocates
Mob: 9289046677
Email: [email protected]

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for
State
Mob: 9871349009
Insp. Pramod Kumar, SI Vikram
Singh, AATS/East
Ms. Hinu Mahajan, Advocate and Mr.
Sandeep Dutta, Advocate for
complainant
Mob: 9654843474
Email:
[email protected]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 1 of 9

1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the
petitioner, i.e., Vijay Kumar, S/o Amar Singh, seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No.
th
425/2026 dated 14 September, 2026, registered under Section 108 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), at Police Station (“PS”)
Kalyanpuri, East, Delhi.
2. This Court is informed that the petitioner had earlier filed an
application before the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) (SC-RC)-01, East,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi, seeking anticipating bail, however, the same was
th
dismissed vide order dated 17 October, 2026, passed in Bail Matters
1178/2026 .
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present application, as culled
out from the material on record, are as follows:
3.1. The deceased, aged about 40 years, was residing at 17/364, Block-17,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi , and was working as a sanitation worker with the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).
nd
3.2. On 02 September, 2026, information regarding the suicide of the
deceased was received at PS Kalyanpuri. On a preliminary enquiry, it was
found that the deceased had allegedly hanged himself from a ceiling fan
with the help of a chunni at his residence.
3.3. Thereafter, he was taken to the Lal Bahadur Shastri (“LBS”) Hospital,
by his wife and other relatives, where he was declared ‘brought dead’. The
same was recorded vide Medico-Legal Certificate (“MLC”) No.
15124/2026 .
3.4. Consequently, the FIR came to be registered on the statement of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 2 of 9

wife of the deceased, whereby, inter alia , she alleged that the deceased
wanted to buy a house through the petitioner, who is a Municipal Councillor
of the area where the deceased resided. The deceased obtained a loan of Rs.
15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) for that purpose through the
petitioner. However, the petitioner allegedly retained/appropriated the entire
loan amount himself.
3.5. In addition, the salary of the deceased had also not been coming since
the last many months from the date of the incident. When the deceased
spoke to the petitioner about his salary and the loan amount, the petitioner
continued to exert pressure on him and threatened to get him transferred.
3.6. It was further alleged that the petitioner forcibly kept the original
bank passbooks, ATM cards, cheque books, property-related documents and
personal identity documents of the deceased.
3.7. The wife of the deceased also alleged that on account of continued
mental harassment and financial exploitation, the deceased experienced
severe tension and depression and remained very troubled until the day of
his suicide.
4. In support of the present application, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has made the following submissions:
4.1. The FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 12 (twelve) days
which clearly points towards the deliberate consultation and legal
concoction to falsely implicate the petitioner.
4.2. The allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and
without admitting their correctness, do not make out an offence under
Section 108 of the BNS or satisfy the ingredients of ‘abetment’ under
Section 45 of the BNS. To constitute the offence of abetment, there must be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 3 of 9

instigation, engagement in a conspiracy, or intentional aid, accompanied by
a clear mens rea on the part of the accused to push the deceased to a position
where he or she is left with no option but to commit suicide.
4.3. In the present case, the allegations are confined to harassment or
pressure in connection with monetary dealings. Such allegations, by
themselves, do not amount to instigation to commit suicide, and nothing in
the FIR shows any intention on the part of the petitioner to bring about the
deceased’s death.
4.4. Additionally, neither was any suicide note left by the deceased, nor is
there any other material on record to establish a proximate nexus or causal
link between the alleged acts of the petitioner and the suicide of the
deceased.
4.5. Moreover, the co-accused, i.e., Surender Choudhary, who is presently
in judicial custody in connection with the FIR No. 425/2026 , secured the
release of the deceased’s jewellery from Muthoot Finance by clearing the
loan on behalf of the deceased, and it is a matter of record that the said gold
was subsequently recovered from him.
4.6. The petitioner has joined the investigation and has duly surrendered
both his mobile phones. Thus, the custody of the petitioner is not required
for investigation since the evidence that is left to be examined is
documentary and electronic in nature.
5. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the
State vehemently opposes the present bail application on the following
grounds:
5.1. A perusal of the Call Detail Records (“CDRs”) of the deceased shows
that the petitioner made 17 (seventeen) calls to the deceased on the day of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 4 of 9

the incident.
5.2. Further, on verification from the CM Jan Sunwai Portal, Government
of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”), it was found that a complaint had been
lodged against the petitioner from the mobile phone of the deceased, vide ID
No. 90000260004555 .
5.3. As per the bank statement of the deceased, it has been found that in
the months of July and August, 2026, around 66 (sixty-six) ATM
withdrawals were made, which is beyond the normal course of routine
transactions.
5.4. It has also emerged during the investigation that the petitioner was
exercising substantial control over the financial affairs of the deceased and
was receiving or appropriating the monthly salary of the deceased for a
considerable period.
5.5. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and there are
serious allegations against him which need to be investigated at length.
5.6. Presently, the investigation is at the initial and crucial stage. There are
certain important aspects relating to the alleged ATM withdrawals, bank
transactions, gold loan transactions, financial trail, salary payment, recovery
of documents, electronic evidence, etc, that are still under investigation.
5.7. The investigation till now discloses sufficient grounds for continued
investigation into the specific role of the petitioner and the circumstances
which allegedly compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and has
perused the material on record.
7. It is well settled that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an
extraordinary power that must be exercised with caution, particularly in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 5 of 9

cases involving serious allegations and where the investigation is still at an
early stage.
8. Further, at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a
detailed examination of the evidence or to decide whether the ingredients of
abetment are finally made out.
9. In the present case, on a prima facie view, the investigation so far
indicates that the deceased was allegedly under financial pressure in
connection with a loan taken in his name. It further indicates that a
complaint was lodged against the petitioner from the mobile phone of the
deceased on the CM Jan Sunwai Portal, GNCTD, and that the petitioner
made 17 (seventeen) calls to the deceased on the day of the incident.
Furthermore, this Court takes note of the submission made on behalf of the
complainant that there is electronic evidence containing communications of
the deceased concerning the conduct of the petitioner.
10. The questions as to whether these acts amount to instigation or
intentional aid within the meaning of Section 45 of the BNS, and whether
there is a proximate link between them and the suicide, are matters to be
adjudicated at the stage of trial and not while deciding an application for
bail.
11. The petitioner is a Municipal Councillor, while the deceased was a
sanitation worker employed with the MCD. Considering the difference in
their position and the allegation that the petitioner threatened to get the
deceased transferred, the apprehension of the State that the petitioner may
influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence cannot be brushed aside
at this stage.
12. Fruitful reference may be drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 6 of 9

in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Versus State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 , wherein, it has been stated that though power
to grant anticipatory is an extraordinary power, however, the same has to be
used with caution as it may lead to tampering, dissolution or distraction of
evidence. The relevant portion of the said judgement 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
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)
13. The submission that the petitioner has joined the investigation and
that only documentary and electronic evidence remains to be examined
cannot, by itself, be a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. It must be
noted that joining the investigation does not by itself show that custodial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 7 of 9

interrogation is unnecessary. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the
st
order dated 21 October, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in X Versus
Arun Kumar C.K & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1834/2022 , wherein, the
following has been held:
“xxx xxx xxx

In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed
one common argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may
be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of
law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by
the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to
grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of
the relevant aspects to be considered along with other
grounds while deciding an application seeking
anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the
custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but
that does not mean that the prima facie case against the
accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be
granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked
into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline
anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is
not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to
grant anticipatory bail.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. It is also pertinent to note that complainant and other persons
connected with the deceased reside in the same locality and are acquainted
with the petitioner. Thus, there is possibility of influencing the witnesses and
destruction/concealment of electronic and documentary evidence. It is
further to be noted that the present case is not based solely upon the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 8 of 9

allegations of the complainant, but there are independent and electronic
corroborative material and audio recordings recovered from the mobile
phone of the deceased.
15. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the stage of the investigation,
and the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
17. The pending application also stands disposed of.
18. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present application and shall not affect the merits of
the case at trial.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 9 of 9