Absconding Man Accused Of Using Forged Papers In Dead Owner’s Name For Electricity Connection Denied Anticipatory Bail By Delhi HC

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 217/2026, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 120B and 34 IPC.

The FIR concerned electricity connections allegedly obtained using forged property documents in the name of a deceased former owner. During investigation, records from the electricity distributor showed that a connection had been obtained for the ground floor in the petitioner’s name.

After notices were served, the petitioner did not join the investigation; non-bailable warrants were issued, and three bail applications before the Trial Court were dismissed.

The petitioner argued that his signature on the connection application had not been established and that his role differed from that of the co-accused.

During the hearing, counsel accepted that the petitioner had obtained the connection; the original documents allegedly used to secure it had not been recovered.

Section 482 BNSS empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy, not a rule, and must be exercised cautiously; protection in serious cases may hamper investigation or enable tampering with or destruction of evidence.

The judgment also observed that a person who continuously defies court orders and absconds is not ordinarily entitled to such relief, while preserving the court’s power to grant it in extreme and exceptional cases.

The Court considered the allegations serious because the electricity connection was allegedly obtained using forged documents, including an NOC attributed to a person who had died in 2009.

The petitioner was named in the FIR and was the beneficiary of the ground-floor connection; his counsel also accepted that he had obtained it.

The petitioner had not joined the investigation despite notices, his phone was switched off, non-bailable warrants had issued, and the original documents remained unrecovered.

Applying the caution required by Srikant Upadhyay, the Court concluded that these circumstances did not justify pre-arrest protection.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and were not an expression of opinion on the merits; pending applications were also disposed of.