Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Proclaimed-Offender Lawyer In Gym Assault Case Involving Public Disrobing And Missing CCTV DVR

In brief

The question

1. Whether anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant despite his being declared a Proclaimed Offender, and whether the case presented exceptional circumstances for such relief.

The court held

The Court held that the applicant had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail as a Proclaimed Offender, and that the pending bail application did not prevent the magistrate from declaring him a Proclaimed Offender in the absence of a stay.

It also directed

Finding the need for custodial interrogation to be genuine, the Court dismissed the anticipatory-bail application and the accompanying applications.

01Facts

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 04/2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 333, 74, 351(3), 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an alleged assault and public disrobing of members of the complainant’s family during a dispute concerning a gym in the basement of the complainant’s property.

pp. 2–4

The prosecution alleged that the applicant participated in the assault and that the CCTV DVR from inside the gym had been removed. After warrants and efforts to locate him, the applicant was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 12 October 2026; he had not challenged that order.

pp. 6, 11, 13–14

He argued, among other things, that his pending anticipatory-bail application and his participation in investigation weighed against denial of relief.

pp. 4–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant despite his being declared a Proclaimed Offender, and whether the case presented exceptional circumstances for such relief.

pp. 7–8

ii.2. Whether the magistrate could declare the applicant a Proclaimed Offender while his anticipatory-bail application was pending.

p. 13

iii.3. Whether the alleged need for custodial interrogation to recover the gym’s CCTV DVR weighed against anticipatory bail.

p. 14

03Law Applied

Relying on Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (2026) 6 SCC 216, the Court held that an absconder is not generally entitled to anticipatory bail, although relief may be granted in exceptional cases where the FIR, case diary and other relevant material support a prima facie view that no case is made out against the accused.

p. 8

The Court accepted that there is no absolute bar on anticipatory bail for a Proclaimed Offender, but treated the Balmukund test as governing the applicant’s claim.

p. 8

The Court also considered the proceedings under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the applicant’s failure to obtain a stay of those proceedings.

p. 11, 13

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115 Section 126 Section 329 Section 333 Section 74 Section 351 Section 79 Section 3

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 84

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438

04Reasoning

The Court found that the complainant and injured family members’ accounts, supported by medical records, alleged a serious assault involving a gym rod and the public disrobing of two victims; it also noted the fracture suffered by Rajesh Garg and the CCTV footage of the assault on Vasu Garg.

pp. 8–9

The discrepancy raised about the recorded side of Rajesh Garg’s facial injury was not considered sufficient to justify anticipatory bail, particularly as the government doctor’s opinion recorded the injury on the right side.

p. 9

The applicant’s conduct—including evading repeated efforts to locate him and the circumstances of his interrogation—did not establish an exceptional case or support a prima facie conclusion that no case was made out.

pp. 10–12

The Court further held that no stay barred the magistrate from proceeding under Section 84 BNSS, and accepted that custodial interrogation was genuinely required to recover the missing DVR.

pp. 13–14