Md. Saif Rabbani vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 05 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010412012026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3651/2026
MD. SAIF RABBANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi,
Advocate (through VC)

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
Mob: 9868632122

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking anticipatory
bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No.
th
143/2025 dated 25 October, 2025, registered at Police Station (“PS”)
Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), South District, Delhi, under Sections
406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. The petitioner had previously filed an application for anticipatory bail
before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)-01, South District, Saket Courts,
st
Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 31 July, 2026 in Bail Matters
1576/2026 .
3. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the material on record,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 1 of 14

rd
including the Status Report dated 03 November, 2024, is set out as under:
3.1. The present FIR was registered based on a complaint submitted by the
complainant, namely, Hari Om Anand, Manager, Northern Regional Office,
Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), New Delhi. He stated that
a total of three complaints had been received from three persons against M/s
Welfra Investment and Assets Management Pvt. Ltd. (“company”) and its
directors, for allegedly offering unregistered Portfolio Management Services
(“PMS”) to the public.
3.2. During the examination conducted by SEBI against the said
complaints, the following findings were made:
a. The company had executed investment agreements with the three
complainants, promising returns through investments in the securities
market.
b. A total amount of Rs. 12,95,82,578/- had been credited into the bank
st st
account of the company between 21 October, 2021, and 31 December,
2024.
c. The investment activity of the company was traced to the director,
namely, Sheshank Ranjan, and was found to be minuscule in comparison
to the collected amount.
d. Sheshank had lured the complainants by executing agreements and
collecting funds under the pretence of offering PMS, without obtaining
registration from SEBI or making corresponding investments in the
securities market.
3.3. During further investigation, a total of 18 victims came forward and
submitted their complaints at PS EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, alleging
that they had been cheated of an aggregate amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 2 of 14

3.4. Sheshank was arrested, and a Chargesheet was filed before the Trial
Court against him and the company. He disclosed that the company had been
established with equal shareholding among himself and three other persons,
including the petitioner.
3.5. Sheshank further disclosed that the petitioner used to handle the demat
accounts of the clients by promising them assured returns. After incurring
losses in the stock market in October, 2021, the petitioner began receiving
amounts, obtained by cheating clients, directly into the bank accounts of the
company.
3.6. The petitioner joined the investigation in compliance with the order
nd
dated 02 September, 2026, passed by this Court.
3.7. As regards the role of the petitioner, it is contended that despite
knowing that the company was not registered with SEBI, he executed
Portfolio Management Agreements (“PMAs”) and received funds from
members of the public.
3.8. It is also contended that the petitioner, in connivance with others,
deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented to the complainants that the
prevalent rules/laws laid down by SEBI were being complied with while
executing the PMAs. In this regard, reliance is placed on extracts of the PMAs
stating that the agreements would be subject to SEBI regulations.
3.9. Further, the petitioner had issued a security cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/-
to one of the complainants, which is relied upon to demonstrate his role as a
key managerial person in the company.
3.10. In addition, it is alleged that the petitioner was involved in handling the
demat accounts of the complainants and other victims. In support of this
allegation, reliance is placed on a screenshot produced by one of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 3 of 14

complainants of an email sent from the company email address of the
petitioner, acknowledging receipt of the demat account details of the father of
that complainant. During his examination, the petitioner acknowledged these
facts and did not dispute them.
4. The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is opposed on the
following grounds:
4.1. The petitioner may threaten, coerce or unduly influence the
complainants.
4.2. There is a risk that the petitioner may abscond if released on bail, as he
does not have a permanent address in Delhi; he is a resident of Cooch Behar,
West Bengal.
4.3. There is a strong possibility that more victims may come forward and
lodge a complaint against the petitioner.
4.4. The petitioner may commit the same type of offence again.
4.5. The petitioner is named as an accused person in another FIR, being FIR
th
No. 237/2024 dated 30 August, 2024, registered at PS BPTP, Faridabad,
Haryana, for a similar offence of cheating. He has been enlarged on regular
th
bail in respect of the said FIR vide order dated 07 July, 2026, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in BA 6418/2026 .
5. In support of the plea for anticipatory bail, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner has submitted as under:
5.1. The petitioner is not named in the present FIR, which was principally
registered against the company and Sheshank. There are only general and
vague allegations against the petitioner.
5.2. The petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company on
th
06 March, 2023, much prior to the transactions and activities forming the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 4 of 14

basis of the present FIR. Subsequent correspondence issued by the
company/Sheshank acknowledges that the petitioner had resigned and ceased
to have authority in relation to the company.
5.3. Contemporaneous WhatsApp communications show that the petitioner
had objected to the functioning and financial affairs of the company and had
serious disputes with Sheshank, undermining the prosecution case that he
willingly participated in the alleged fraud.
5.4. The effective control and management of the financial affairs of the
company were exercised by Sheshank, while the petitioner was neither an
authorised signatory of the bank accounts of the company, nor authorised to
independently operate, control or deal with the funds maintained therein.
5.5. The petitioner was himself financially aggrieved, as his mother had
invested approximately Rs. 9,38,000/- with the company, and sought a refund
th
through a legal notice dated 08 January, 2024, after his resignation.
5.6. Sheshank has already been arrested, and a Chargesheet has been filed
against him. Thus, the investigation has substantially progressed, and there is
no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
5.7. The case of the prosecution is predominantly based on documentary
evidence, which is already in its possession.
5.8. The other FIR registered against the petitioner, i.e., FIR No. 237/2024 ,
involves substantially the same allegations, transactions and circumstances as
the present FIR. While granting him regular bail in that case, the Trial Court
recorded that no specific role was attributed to him; that he had not received
the alleged amount in his personal account; that he was neither a beneficiary
nor an authorised signatory; and that no allegation of forgery had been made
against him. These findings are relevant to assessing the need for his custodial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 5 of 14

interrogation in the present case.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
record.
7. At the outset, it is apposite to set out the scope of the power of this
Court to grant anticipatory bail.
8. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 6 of 14

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)
9. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 7 of 14

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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 8 of 14

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)

10. 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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 9 of 14

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 )
11. Fruitful reference may also be made to the case of P. Chidambaram
Versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , wherein, the Supreme
Court has observed that in cases involving economic offences, the grant of
anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate effective
interrogation and collection of evidence, and that such relief should be granted
only in exceptional circumstances. The relevant portions of the judgment are
reproduced below:
“xxx xxx xxx
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of
economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different
class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In
Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain
[Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2
SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic
offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

xxx xxx xxx

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of
bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 10 of 14

Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] ,
the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the matter
of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances
which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trial,
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public/State and other
similar considerations.”

(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also the
materials which might have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is
protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper
the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said
to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement
Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we
are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many
stages of “placement”, “layering i.e. funds moved to other
institutions to conceal origin” and “interrogation i.e. funds
used to acquire various assets”, it requires systematic and
analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As
held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , success in such interrogation would
elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest
bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 11 of 14

exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or
groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of
laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement
Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various
sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said
to have been issued and some response have been received by
the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and
the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating
agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of
investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the
learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the
Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground
warranting interference with the impugned order [P.
Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703].
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our
view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the
investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion
to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Having regard to the aforementioned judgments and the various factors
stated therein to be considered when granting anticipatory bail, this Court
notes that the present case involves several complainants, with additional
victims having come forward and the possibility of others doing so, and a
substantial amount allegedly obtained by cheating.
13. The allegations are not confined to an isolated transaction, but they
prima facie disclose an organised scheme, whereby investors were induced to
invest their money based on misrepresentations made on behalf of the
company and its directors. Economic offences of such a nature are to be
viewed seriously and treated as a class apart.
th
14. While it has been submitted that the petitioner had resigned on 06
March, 2023, this does not wholly negate his alleged involvement in the
affairs of the company prior thereto. The allegations concerning his role in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 12 of 14

executing PMAs, handling demat accounts, and inducing investments require
further investigation to ascertain the nature and extent of his involvement in
the alleged offences.
15. It has also been argued that since the petitioner was granted regular bail
th
on 07 July, 2026, in FIR No. 237/2024 , involving circumstances similar to
the present case, his custodial interrogation is unnecessary and he should be
granted anticipatory bail. The said argument cannot be accepted, as the
present FIR involves several other complainants alleging cheating through the
same modus operandi , indicating a wider scale of the alleged activities.
Moreover, the complainant in the earlier FIR had settled the matter with the
petitioner and expressed no objection to the grant of regular bail.
16. This Court further takes note of the submissions opposing the grant of
anticipatory bail, including the risk of the petitioner committing a similar
offence in view of his alleged involvement in other offences of the same
nature.
17. Additionally, as regards the contention that the evidence against the
petitioner is documentary in nature, this Court notes that the existence of
documentary evidence does not, by itself, obviate the need for custodial
interrogation. The scope of the investigation will not necessarily be restricted
to examining the documents already in possession, particularly when it has
submitted on behalf of the State that further investigation may reveal
additional victims.
18. 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.
19. The present application is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 13 of 14

20. 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 5, 2026




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:36:52
Page 14 of 14