Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail Over Omitted Prior Bail Orders and an Affidavit That Appeared Forged

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in light of the allegations in the FIR.

The court held

The Court held that the application was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the anticipatory-bail application and its accompanying applications.

01Facts

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 178/2026, registered at PS IGI Airport for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 12 of the Passports Act.

pp. 1–2

The prosecution alleged that he provided a forged Canadian visa to a passenger intercepted while travelling to Colombo, intending to proceed to Canada; it also alleged his involvement in three similar cases in Punjab.

pp. 1–2

The present application was the applicant’s third anticipatory-bail application before the Court. His first and second applications had been withdrawn, with the second withdrawn on 16 October 2026 after the Court granted liberty to refile upon disclosing the orders in the earlier applications. The present application again omitted the order dated 16 October 2026.

pp. 2–3

The Court also noted that an affidavit filed in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors. appeared to be forged: its signatures differed, and it was dated and notarized on 3 October 2026 yet referred to the withdrawal order made on 16 October 2026.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in light of the allegations in the FIR.

pp. 1–2

ii.2. Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the applicant repeatedly failed to disclose the outcome of prior applications and filed an affidavit that appeared to be forged.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

The application concerned alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 12 of the Passports Act.

p. 1

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026 INSC 144, in connection with the affidavit filed by the applicant.

p. 3

The judgment does not set out a separate doctrinal test for anticipatory bail; its decision turns on the circumstances of the application, including repeated non-disclosure and the apparent defects in the affidavit.

pp. 2–4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318 Section 336 Section 340 Section 61

Passports Act, 1967 Section 12

04Reasoning

The Court considered the alleged supply of a forged visa and the prosecution’s assertion that the applicant was involved in similar cases.

pp. 1–2

It placed particular weight on the applicant’s repeated failure to disclose the outcome of his earlier anticipatory-bail applications, despite having been given an opportunity to do so.

pp. 2–3

The affidavit’s inconsistent signatures and its reference to an order made after the affidavit’s stated date raised a further concern about its authenticity. The Court also noted that the vakalatnama accompanying the present application pre-dated the withdrawal of the second application, suggesting that the same vakalatnama had been reused.

p. 3

In view of these circumstances, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail.

p. 4