$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2248/2026 and CRL.M.A. 18061/2026 ABHISHEK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Rana and Mr. Abhishek Rana Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State with SI Deepak Lathwal. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No.57/2026 dated 03.02.2026 registered at PS Narela Industrial Area for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1)/126(2)/115(2)/303(2)/324(4)/190/ 191(2)/351(2)/3(5) BNS. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, the FIR itself was registered after three days and he is not named in the said FIR. There is no role attributed to the applicant. Even in the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation against the applicant. The allegations are against other accused persons. One of the accused namely Rohit allegedly used iron rod and other accused used lathi. There is no allegation of any extortion or otherwise. 3. The aforesaid submissions are strongly opposed by learned APP 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:50 appearing on behalf of the State. He submits that despite service, the applicant did not join investigation. According to him, there are 13 accused persons identified, out of whom 8 have been arrested and the remaining accused persons, including the applicant, are yet to be apprehended. He also submits that the applicant has clearly been seen in the CCTV footage from the place of occurrence installed in front of Factory No. K-451, Bhorgarh Phase-II, Industrial Area. The supplementary statements of complainant namely, Nikhil Khatri and eye witness namely, Mehandi Hasan were also recorded. Upon collection of further evidence, the investigation was progressed and it was found that the crime was well planned and it was a coordinated attack. 4. The Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 held as under, “10. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as „absconder‟. Normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a „proclaimed offende‟r, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.” 5. The Supreme Court in State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. P. Chidambaram2 observed, “Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such 1 (2012) 8 SCC 730 2 (2019) 9 SCC 24 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:50 a condition would reduce to a mere ritual.” 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The applicant has prima-facie played an active role in the commission of the offence as he has been specifically identified by the eye witness Mehandi Hasan and CCTV footage clearly captures the applicant emerging from the Scorpio vehicle carrying a wooden stick in his hand. The applicant did not join investigation despite service of notice, and Non-Bailable Warrants have been issued against him. 7. For all those reasons the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected. Pending accompanying application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 6, 2026/ NC 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 09/07/2026 at 10:33:50