Delhi HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Investment-Firm Director Accused In Alleged ₹2-Crore Investor Fraud, As More Victims May Emerge

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 143/2025, registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner participated in an unregistered portfolio-management scheme, including by executing agreements, handling clients’ demat accounts and inducing investments; the investigation identified multiple complainants and substantial sums allegedly collected.

The petitioner maintained that he had resigned as a director in March 2023, lacked control over company funds, and was himself financially affected; he also relied on the progress of the investigation and his regular bail in a separate FIR.

His earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Section 482 BNSS confers a discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. The court must assess the circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant’s precise role, risk of flight or repetition, possible witness intimidation or evidence tampering, the impact of bail, and the need to protect both the investigation and the applicant from unjustified detention (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, as quoted at pp. 7–9, para. 9).

The power is extraordinary and calls for caution, particularly in serious cases where protection may hamper investigation (Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, as quoted at pp. 6–7, para. 8).

Lack of custodial-interrogation need, by itself, is not sufficient to warrant anticipatory bail; the court must also consider the State’s case and the nature of the offence (P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, as quoted at pp. 9–10, para. 10).

Economic offences may warrant a particularly careful approach, and anticipatory bail at the investigation stage may impede interrogation and evidence collection (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, as quoted at pp. 10–12, para. 11).

The Court considered the allegations to disclose a prima facie organised scheme involving multiple complainants, substantial sums and the possibility of further victims.

The petitioner’s claimed resignation did not resolve allegations concerning his earlier execution of portfolio-management agreements, handling of demat accounts and inducement of investments; the extent of his involvement remained to be investigated.

His bail in the separate FIR did not determine the present application because this FIR involved additional complainants and a broader alleged scheme.

Nor did the documentary nature of the evidence or the petitioner’s cooperation eliminate the possibility that further investigation or custodial interrogation could be required.

Weighing these matters against the risks raised by the State, the Court declined to grant pre-arrest protection.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not affect the trial on the merits.