$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2459/2026 PANKAJ SHARMA ....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shweta S. Kumar, Advocate. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Mohit Yadav. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 254/2026 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram for the offence punishable under Section 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated, the FIR has been registered after considerable delay of nearly one and half year and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 4. It is further submitted that the entire material is already in possession of the investigating agency and he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. There is no reason as to why the applicant should be custodially interrogated. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:22 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has also shown certain photographs depicting the status between the parties, which were placed by the complainant herself. 6. It is, thus, her contention that there was no reason as to why the applicant or his family members should be implicated. She also submits that the complainant herself is a Constable in Delhi Police and at her instance the false implication is made. 7. The submissions are opposed by learned counsel who appears for the respondent State. He has handed over the status report and states that bearing in mind the complicity of the applicant and nature of the offence which has been committed, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is further pointed out that unless the applicant surrenders and his custodian interrogation, the truth will not surface and investigation will not be completed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It appears that on 07.05.2026, the Police on receipt of the information had reached the site where it was found that one person namely Vikram, was found hanging. He was taken to hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Thereupon, the MLC was conducted and post-mortem was carried out. 10. During the inquiry, the suicide note was recovered from the spot. It also came to light that the deceased had recently shifted to Delhi and was residing with his sister Menka. The mobile phone of the deceased reveals that applicant had spoken with him shortly before the incident. It also emerged during the inquiry that about two days prior to the incident, the applicant had threatened Menka. 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:22 11. The status report further indicates that on 20.01.2026, the applicant, in the presence of his family members, tendered a written apology before the police authorities and requested for withdrawal of the complaint which was made against him. Despite the said apology, the applicant again started harassing Menka and even reached her place of duty as well as her residence. Owing to the fear and intimidation caused by the applicant, Menka shifted her residence to Keshav Puram. 12. The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to safeguard individual liberty against unwarranted arrest. At the same time, such power is not to be exercised as a matter of course. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,1 the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court held that while no inflexible formula can govern the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS), the Court must balance the individual's right to liberty with the need for a fair and effective investigation, having due regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of influencing the investigation. 13. Similarly, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar,2 the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not be granted where the allegations disclose a prima facie case and custodial interrogation is necessary to facilitate a fair and complete investigation. “13. There is no substantial difference between Sections 438 and 439 CrPC so far as appreciation of the case as to whether or not a bail is to be granted, is concerned. However, neither anticipatory bail nor regular bail can be granted as a matter of rule. The anticipatory bail 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2012) 4 SCC 379 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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:22 being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after proper application of mind to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.” 14. Viewing the merits of this petition in light of these observations, this Court finds that there is sufficient material at this stage to prima facie establish the complicity of the applicant. The investigation has revealed the recovery of a suicide note specifically naming the applicant, the mobile phone records indicating that the applicant had spoken to the deceased shortly before the incident, and material suggesting that despite tendering a written apology before the police authorities, the applicant allegedly continued to harass and threaten the deceased's sister. The investigation is still underway to ascertain the complete sequence of events, examine the electronic evidence and verify the role of all persons involved. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to facilitate a fair, effective and comprehensive investigation. 15. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the alleged conduct of the applicant preceding the incident and the stage of investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Granting the relief at this stage is likely to impede the ongoing investigation. 16. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 23, 2026 Aks/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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:22