$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010396892025 + BAIL APPLN. 2361/2025 SAMAYVIR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saif Ali with Mr. Surya Pratap, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 147/2025 dated 07.03.2025, registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 316(2)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, the FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Jaivir Singh Tomar, alleging that the applicant had prepared a false and fabricated document, purporting to be a full and final settlement, on a blank signed paper. During the course of investigation, the applicant’s version that the said document was executed in the presence of 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:13 one, Priyanka Tomar was found to be incorrect. It has further been alleged that the applicant attempted to misappropriate a cheque belonging to a sister concern of M/s JM Infra @ Enviro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which was in his custody while he was looking after the affairs of the said company. 3. The applicant’s application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South-East, Saket, vide order dated 09.05.2025, on a consideration of the aforesaid allegations. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application. 4. It be noted that the applicant was protected from arrest on the first date of hearing, i.e., 04.07.2025. Thereafter, the applicant has appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”), as and when called upon to do so, and has cooperated with the investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and has been given a criminal colour; that the cheque in question, though initially dishonoured, was subsequently cleared; and that no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant, at the inception of the transaction, is discernible from the record. 6. Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP appearing for the State, on instructions from SI Deepak Kumar, submits that the investigation qua the applicant stands completed and the charge-sheet is likely to be filed shortly. He fairly states that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage. 7. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been succinctly and authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:13 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. 8. The aforesaid principles were further elucidated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Supreme Court 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. 9. The Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. held that:- “9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 CrPC that it does not impose an obligation on the officer-in-charge to arrest each and every 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:13 accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-sheet being filed non- bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the investigating officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 CrPC does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the investigating officer before the court while filing the charge- sheet. 10. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it [Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172] . If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. [Emphasis Supplied] 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the investigation qua the applicant stands completed, and it has been fairly conceded on behalf of the State that his custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant has, throughout the pendency of the present proceedings, appeared before the IO as and when called upon and has cooperated with the investigation. In these circumstances, no case for denial of anticipatory bail, on the touchstone of the principles noticed above, is made out. 12. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:13 directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released by the Investigating Officer on bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Investigating Officer. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 tr/nk 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:13