$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010100102026 + BAIL APPLN. 1079/2026 IMRAN RAUMA ......Petitioner Through: None. versus STATE G.N.C.T. OF DELHI ......Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Ashish Kumar, P.S. Cyber South. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 48/2025 dated 09.10.2025 registered under sections 318(4)/319/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) at P.S. Cyber Police Station, South, Delhi. 2. From the first date of hearing, i.e. on 18.03.2026, when the notice was issued, the applicant was protected from arrest, subject to applicant joining investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’). 3. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that applicant has appeared before Investigating Agency. She further 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 19/08/2026 at 11:48:32 submits, on instructions, that the charge-sheet is likely to be filed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required by the IO. 4. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been succinctly and authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab,.1 It was held that the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) [corresponding to Section 482 BNSS] is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to protect personal liberty and is to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. The aforesaid principles were further elucidated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,2 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. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case and giving due weight to the fact that the investigation is complete, no case for denial of anticipatory bail is made out. 7. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released by the IO 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 19/08/2026 at 11:48:32 on bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned IO. 8. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 17, 2026 ab 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 19/08/2026 at 11:48:32