Anil Singh v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 497/2026 ANIL SINGH .....Applicant Through:
Mr. Jaspal Singh, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Zeeshan Saifi and Mr.
Aakash, Advs.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Ms.
Upasna Bakshi and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advs. with SI Sangeeta, PS.: Mukherjee Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
O R D E R
% 23.03.2026 1.
By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.1081/2024 dated 02.12.2024 registered under Sections 305(a)/331(4)/3(5)/317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at PS: Mukherjee Nagar. 2.
As per FIR, in the morning of 02.12.2024, the complainant, owner of a company dealing in flour mills and grocery items, found the locks of the main gate as well as all the doors, cupboards, etc. of his office broken, as well as Rs.50 Lakhs in cash to be missing therefrom. This resulted in registration of the present FIR. In a supplementary statement, the complainant identified total missing amount as Rs.1.25 Crores. 3.
During investigation, three accused persons were identified, of whom the applicant herein is one. Co-accused Raghuveer was arrested on 15.12.2024 at whose instance roughly Rs.37 Lakhs in cash as well as a The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
bike purchased from the stolen money were recovered, and he disclosed that the applicant herein had received Rs.40 Lakhs out of the total stolen amount. Since the applicant could not be traced, on 01.05.2025 proclamation under Section 84 BNSS was issued against him by the learned Trial Court, however, on 28.04.2025, he was arrested in a separate E-FIR No.80039164/2025 registered under Sections 305/317(2)/3(5) BNS at PS: Vijay Vihar. He was then also arrested in the present FIR on 17.05.2025, and roughly Rs.2 Lakhs were recovered at his instance. The charge-sheet has since been filed.
4.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is being falsely implicated in the present FIR without any evidence, as even the alleged recovery is neither from his own house nor at his instance. He submits that the entire case of the prosecution against the applicant is based on mere statements made by the co-accused Raghuveer, who has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 in Bail Appln.4051/2025 entitled 'Raghuvir Singh @ Bondi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)'. He further submits that the applicant has already been under incarceration for nearly one year as an undertrial for offences punishable by a maximum period of three years, and based on the aforesaid, he ought to be released on bail. 5.
Learned APP for State has handed over the Status Report. The same is taken on record. Based thereon, he opposes grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that barring the present FIR, the applicant is involved in as many as nineteen other criminal cases under similar provisions of law, that too, in various parts of the Country in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhatisgarh, as well as NCT of Delhi. Also, he had been The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
absconding and could be apprehended only after issuance of proclamation by the learned Trial Court. Further, the case is at a nascent stage since the charges are yet to be framed and consequently, the trial has not even started. There is, thus, every likelihood of witness intimidation/ evidence tampering by the applicant, if he is released on bail. 6.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned APP for State, and perused the documents as also the Status Report on record.
7.
Admittedly, it is not in dispute that charges against the applicant are yet to be framed, and a perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the offences involved are grave, with the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed being fourteen years. The same is a vital consideration for this Court in the present application. So much so, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant qua the offences involved punishable only with three years are belied. Regarding the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Raghuvir Singh @ Bondi (supra), though it is pertaining to a co-accused in the present FIR, however, it cannot offer any aid to the case of the applicant since, as evident therefrom the charges had been framed against the applicant therein only under Section 317(2) BNS, which carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for a period of three years.
8.
It is also pertinent to note that the applicant herein has been involved in multiple other offences of the same nature, as many as nineteen, in four different States of India. Not only that, he was also, under those circumstances, untraceable as he was absconding till a proclamation was issued against him, and even then, was arrested in the present FIR The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
after being apprehended in relation to another FIR. There are, thus, chances of the applicant engaging in similar activities and/ or evading arrest and/ or flee and/ or influencing the witnesses and/ or tampering with evidence. All this raises a deep concern in the mind of this Court regarding granting regular bail to the applicant. 9.
In view of the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the present application is dismissed.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J MARCH 23, 2026/bh The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.