BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 $~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 SH KAMRAN KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rozy, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP PS Mayur Vihar, SI Ajay Sharma CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 13.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 20054/2026 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20053/2026 (for interim protection) 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 32/2026, dated 25.01.2026, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar Ph-I, District East, Delhi. The FIR was originally registered under Sections 109(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. At the stage of filing of the chargesheet, offences under Sections 115(2)/118(1)/126(2)/54/55/61(2)/(191(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS, were added. 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:35 BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 2. I have heard Ms. Rozy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner had earlier sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 17.04.2026. 4. The prosecution case, as it appears from the material on record, is as follows: a. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Vishal, in which he alleged that on 25.01.2026, 4-5 boys assaulted him and also stabbed him. In the meanwhile, he had called his uncle, one Nitin, who upon reaching, was also assaulted. Upon shots being fired, Vishal and Nitin ran away from the spot. Both were taken to the Hospital. During investigation, MLC of the victims revealed stabbing injuries on Vishal and a gunshot wound on Nitin. b. Nitin also had made a PCR call regarding the same incident, in which it was stated that 3-4 known persons had beaten Vishal, and also stabbed him, and that those persons were carrying pistol in their hands. Later, Nitin had made another call, in which he stated that he had also been attacked. c. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner and others were collectively in search of persons by the name of Rashid @ Kankhada and Aman, in view of the fact that their friend Hamza had been beaten by Vishal. d. The prosecution relies upon the statements of the injured- complainants Vishal and Nitin, as well as independent witnesses Pankaj and Dharmendra, as also statements of co-accused Faraz, 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:35 BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 Ajju and Mosin. e. It is also stated in the status report, that the petitioner has 24 cases against him and is a declared bad character of the area, including an incident on the same date, i.e. 25.01.2026, when another call was received with regard to some persons having picked a fight with a lady. 5. Ms. Rozy submits that the case against the petitioner is inherently weak, as the petitioner was, in fact, subjected to an order of externment for a period of one year, which ended only on 08.04.2026. The FIR thus relates to incidents which took place while the accused was externed from National Capital Territory of Delhi. She further submits that there is no forensic evidence against the petitioner and that he is willing to join the investigation, if he is granted an order of interim protection by the Court. She further submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in three cases out of the above 24 cases, referred to by the prosecution. 6. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits the offences of which the petitioner is accused are serious offences, including stabbing and gun- shots injuries inflicted upon the victims. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed against other co-accused, but the petitioner has evaded investigation for a period of almost six months. According to Mr. Srivastava, there is also CCTV footage which shows the petitioner’s presence. Having regard to the criminal involvement of the petitioner noted above, and to the nature of the offences in the present case, Mr. Srivastava submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. 7. In an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:35 BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 consider inter alia the nature of offences and the public interest in a free and fair investigation, while deciding whether the petitioner is liable to be protected against potential curtailment of his liberty. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar1 emphasised the considerations which must prevail in adjudicating an application for anticipatory bail. While characterising anticipatory bail as an “extraordinary remedy”, the Court cautioned circumspection, in the following terms: “30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.”2 8. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are undoubtedly serious. He and the co-accused are alleged to have been in search of Rashid @ Kankhada, who is an eye-witness in another FIR [FIR No. 42/2023] registered against them. In the present FIR, they are alleged to have stabbed the victim Vishal and shot the victim Nitin. These 1 (2024) 12 SCC 382 [hereinafter, “Srikant Upadhyay”]. 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:35 BAIL APPLN. 2627/2026 allegations are supported by the statements of the victim, independent witnesses, and statements of co-accused. The petitioner’s multiple criminal involvements is also a relevant factor, while considering an application of this nature. While it was argued that the petitioner was subject to an order of externment at the relevant time, whether or not he was in fact present in Delhi remains a matter to be determined at trial. 9. In the light of the allegations and the material on record, it cannot also be said that this is a case where the requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner can be ruled out. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not consider this a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. The application, alongwith the pending application, stands dismissed. 12. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not influence the trial proceedings, nor shall they be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 13, 2026 ‘pv’/AN/ 2 Emphasis supplied. 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:35