Bail is denied where accused allegedly commit armed abduction and robbery by impersonating police officers.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 108/2026 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for offences under Sections 140(2), 309(6), 311 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that, on 19 March 2026, the complainant and his brother went to collect payment for gold and diamond jewellery. The petitioner and co-accused allegedly forcibly entered their Range Rover, threatened them at gunpoint while impersonating police officers, abducted them towards GT Karnal Road, compelled the complainant to arrange money for their release, and robbed cash, mobile phones, an Apple Watch, jewellery and the vehicle.

Charges had not yet been framed.

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in view of the allegations of abduction, impersonation as police officers, criminal intimidation and robbery under the relevant provisions of the BNS.

Whether the alleged evidentiary deficiencies and the petitioner’s submissions concerning the TIP, recoveries, CCTV footage and injuries justified release on bail at the pre-charge stage.

Whether the risk of the petitioner threatening or pressurising the complainant, together with the gravity of the alleged offences and the abscondence of a co-accused, warranted denial of bail.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing regular bail in criminal proceedings, while considering the seriousness and nature of the alleged offences under Sections 140(2), 309(6), 311 and 3(5) BNS.

The governing bail principles require the Court to assess the prima facie material, the gravity and manner of commission of the offence, the likelihood of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses, the stage of proceedings, and the broader interests of justice.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s reliance on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, but treated the right to personal liberty as subject to a judicial assessment of the competing risks in the circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the allegations disclosed a serious and organised incident in which the petitioner and co-accused allegedly impersonated police officials, abducted and confined the complainant and his brother at gunpoint, compelled payment for their release, and thereafter committed robbery.

Although the petitioner questioned the recovery procedure, the proof of the robbed cash, the TIP and the nature of the injuries, the Court did not treat these matters as sufficient to grant bail at that stage.

It took into account that the TIP of the petitioner and the allegedly robbed articles had been successful, CCTV footage showing the Range Rover had been sent to the FSL, and a supplementary chargesheet was contemplated.

The Court further noted that the charge had not yet been framed, that a co-accused was absconding, and that the prosecution apprehended pressure or threats to the complainant.

Considering the manner and gravity of the alleged offence, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail at that stage.

It held that, given the allegations of impersonation as police officers, abduction, confinement and robbery, along with the concerns regarding witness intimidation and the ongoing investigation, the petitioner was not entitled to regular bail at that stage.

The bail application and the accompanying application were dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for immediate communication to the petitioner.