Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to 3 Accused in Former Hotel Worker’s Alleged Murder, Citing Warrant Evasion and Missing Gun, DVR

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR alleging offences including murder, kidnapping, destruction of evidence and offences under the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that Sagar was killed at Hotel D-2 amid business rivalry, and that his body was transported to Uttar Pradesh and burnt.

Amit and Devender were alleged to have threatened Sagar and to have had roles connected with the hotel; Rakesh was alleged to have escorted the car carrying the body.

The murder weapon and hotel DVR had not been recovered.

Amit and Devender had evaded investigation and faced non-bailable warrants; Rakesh was declared a proclaimed offender.

Each later joined the investigation while protected by interim orders.

The prosecution stated that a further supplementary charge-sheet had been prepared, but the investigation remained ongoing.

The complainant, the deceased’s brother, sought vacation of the interim protection granted to Amit and Devender.

Section 482 BNSS governs applications for anticipatory bail.

Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy and is not granted as a matter of course; in serious cases, it requires careful consideration of the prima facie case and the circumstances of the applicant (Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379).

A person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail, though exceptional cases may justify relief; continued evasion of court orders weighs against it (Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382).

The absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation, or completion of investigation, is not by itself sufficient to grant anticipatory bail: the court must also assess the prima facie case, offence, punishment and other relevant circumstances (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24; Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391).

Further investigation may continue under Section 193(9) BNSS even after a police report is filed.

The Court considered the alleged planned murder, the evidence attributed to each applicant, and their conduct towards the investigation.

It noted that the weapon and DVR remained unrecovered, and that the investigation into the applicants’ roles had not concluded; a draft supplementary charge-sheet was not equivalent to a report filed before the Magistrate.

The status report also recorded unsuccessful questioning under interim protection, non-cooperation by Rakesh, and inaccessible or deleted phone data.

The Court further found that Amit and Devender had evaded warrants and that Rakesh had been declared a proclaimed offender; their later cooperation under interim protection did not erase that conduct.

The risk of influencing hotel employees who were material witnesses also weighed against relief.

The Court therefore held that the applicants’ assertions about completed investigation, phone seizure and lack of need for custodial interrogation did not outweigh the other circumstances.

The protection granted to the applicants was vacated, and they were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week.

After surrender, they remained at liberty to seek regular bail, to be considered on its own merits and uninfluenced by the Court’s prima facie observations.