$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2625/2026 SH. GURLAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Adv. versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS IGI AIRPORT .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Ekta, PS: IGI Airport. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 13.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 20048/2026 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 2625/2026 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 4. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 291/2025 dated 05.04.2025 registered at Police Station Indira Gandhi International Airport u/s 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967. 5. The narration in the FIR appears to be that one Gursahib Singh, upon 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:09 being deported from the United States of America as an illegal entrant, arrived at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Furthermore, during scrutiny of his passport, residual pieces of paper and glue marks were noticed on page no. 23 of his passport. Upon enquiry, he allegedly disclosed that a travel agent had facilitated the affixation of a possibly forged Schengen visa on the said page, which was subsequently removed during his illegal migration through Latin American countries to the United States of America. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, the applicant has no role and his custodial interrogation is uncalled for. He has placed reliance on the order of which Court in Jugraj Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)1 and according to him, his case is similarly placed. Another order dated 08.06.2026 has been relied upon whereby; the concerned Court has deleted the Look Out Circular (LoC), without examining the merits of the case, to enable the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court within one month and join the investigation. It is thus contended that even in the disclosure statement, the name of the petitioner is not disclosed. 7. The submissions are opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The case diary has been produced. The Court has perused the disclosure statement of Gursahib Singh, who was the actual beneficiary of the alleged false visa and had travelled on its basis. The allegations against the present applicant are of facilitating the false and fabricated visa against the consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 8. The Court has perused the disclosure statement and finds that 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:09 beneficiary (pax) has stated that Guri @ Gurdev was the person who assured him of a false visa against the consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP, however, clarifies that, on the basis of the investigation, including inter alia surveillance, carried out so far, no person by the name of Guri @ Gurdev has been found. Furthermore, the investigation reveals that the mobile phone and the WhatsApp number referred to by Gursahib Singh were being used by, and were found in the possession of, the present applicant. It is contended that in order to conduct the proper investigation, the applicant’s custodial interrogation is necessary. 9. The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,2 has held as under: “35. Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has “reason to believe” that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individuals liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely.” 10. As per the dictum of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, a prayer for anticipatory bail is required to be assessed on the basis of 1 Bail Appln. 3672/2025, Order dt. 23.02.2026. 2 (1980) 2 SCC 565. 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:09 objective material and the facts of each case. 11. In the present case, the material collected during investigation, including the disclosure statement, surveillance and the alleged use and possession of the relevant mobile phone and WhatsApp number by the applicant, furnishes sufficient grounds for further inquiry. 12. The learned APP has submitted that the aspect of larger conspiracy will also have to be looked into bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations that the pax was provided a false visa and he travelled to USA wherefrom, he was deported back to India. It is after his deportation, the entire conspiracy came to surface and accordingly, the investigation has been carried out. 13. Bearing in mind the overall allegations made against the applicant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. He is permitted to surrender. 14. In case, he surrenders and files an application for regular bail, let the same be considered with due expedition on its own merit. 15. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 13, 2026/P/SS 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 16/07/2026 at 11:14:09