$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010984262025 + BAIL APPLN. 4738/2025 SALONI AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Adv. (appearance not given) versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. SI Satender Singh. Mr. Chetanya Puri & Mr. Anand Awasti, Advs. for complainant/MSH. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. The present application has been filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 55/2025 dated 24.04.2025 for the offences punishable under sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is pointed out that the name of the applicant has been unnecessarily dragged into the subject FIR only because she is the Managing Director of the company, M/s HPPL Foundation Private Limited. It is alleged that MeitY Startup Hub (MSH), a company under the Ministry of Electronics and Information This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:01:31 Technology (MeitY), had provided funds for disbursal under the Start-up Accelerator of MeitY for Product, Innovation, Development and Growth (SAMRIDH) Programme through MSH, Government of India, and on account of the alleged irregularities in the disbursal of the said amount, the present FIR has been lodged. It is thus contended that the investigation qua the present applicant would primarily require examination of documentary evidence and that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. 3. The applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 12.01.2026. 4. The submissions are opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State, as well as Mr. Anand Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the MSH. Both have contended that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that the applicant is equally responsible for the alleged offence. More importantly, it is submitted that the applicant is also connected with M/s Horses Production Private Limited, wherein she was also a director, and that the said entity figures in the alleged diversion of funds. 5. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. The prosecution story would indicate that M/s HPPL Foundation was appointed as an accelerator under the SAMRIDH Scheme for disbursal of funds to selected start-ups. Allegations subsequently arose regarding non- disbursal of the funds and submission of a purportedly false Utilisation Certificate. During investigation, it was found that substantial amounts received by M/s HPPL Foundation were transferred to M/s Horses This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:01:31 Production Pvt. Ltd. and other accounts, resulting in the registration of the present case for the alleged misappropriation and diversion of funds. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the matter is still under investigation. The applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 12.01.2026, pursuant to which she appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer (IO) and joined the investigation. Though it is contended on behalf of the State that the replies furnished by the applicant are evasive and that she has not provided truthful information, the investigation qua the applicant primarily involves examination of documentary and financial material. 8. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been succinctly and authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab,.1 It was held that the power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to protect personal liberty and is to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench further held that while exercising such discretion, the Court must strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. It was also observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted on vague or general apprehensions and that no inflexible restrictions or conditions, not envisaged by the statute, can be imposed while considering an application under Section 438 CrPC. 9. The aforesaid principles were further elucidated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Supreme Court 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2011) 1 SCC 694 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:01:31 emphasized that the power under Section 438 CrPC is intrinsically connected with the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and must be exercised bearing in mind the presumption of innocence. The Court observed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and held that denial of anticipatory bail would be justified only where the facts disclose a genuine necessity, such as the requirement of custodial interrogation or the likelihood of the applicant absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the material sought to be collected in the course of investigation is essentially documentary in nature. The applicant has been appearing before the Investigating Agency pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court and has joined the investigation. In the absence of any circumstance demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court finds no justification for directing the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage. 11. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the applicant is a lady and her husband has already been enlarged on regular bail, it is directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released by the IO on anticipatory bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned IO. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026 Ab/SA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:01:31