$~71 & 85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010360462026 + BAIL APPLN. 3170/2026 ASIF ALI KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaiveer and Mr. Irshad, Advs. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. SI Sunil Chandra, PS: Malviya Nagar. Mr. Kunal Baisoya, Adv. for Complainant. 85 # CNR No. DLHC010361942026 + BAIL APPLN. 3190/2026 MOHD KHURSHEED AHMAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jaiveer and Mr. Irshad, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State. SI Sunil Chandra, PS: Malviya Nagar. Mr. Kunal Baisoya, Adv. for Complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27 O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 246/2026 dated 10.07.2026, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 110 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). 2. The learned ASJ-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dt. 03.08.2026 (“Impuned Order”) dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant. 3. As per the FIR, on 09.07.2026, the complainant was dropping off his cousin at Malviya Nagar Metro when co-accused/ Zuber began abusing him and his sister. Several associates/ relatives of the complainant and the co- accused (including the present petitioner) arrived at the location and attacked each other with an iron rod, baseball bat and knife. The complainant injured himself and suffered a deep head wound before collapsing unconscious. 4. In paragraph no.14 of the Impugned Order, the Court observed the following: “The investigation is presently at a preliminary stage. The weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence have not yet been recovered. The CCTV footage placed before the Court prima facie depicts a violent assault involving several persons. The injuries sustained by some of the victim are also stated to be serious.” 5. Additionally, it appears that the applicant is not cooperating despite issuance of notice. The proceedings for issuance of Non- Bailable Warrants against the applicant are stated to be pending. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27 6. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement1 held that the power under Section 438 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should only be granted in exceptional cases. Paragraph no. 67 is reproduced as under:- “67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. [Emphasis Supplied] 7. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain Mohd. S. Husain2 provided relevant factors for considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail. Paragraph no. 20 is reproduced as under:- “20. The four factors, which are relevant for considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail, are: "(i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and (iv) the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice.” [Emphasis Supplied] 1 Crl. Appeal No. 1340/2019, decided on 05.09.2019. 2 (2008) 1 SCC 213. 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27 8. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, and the fact that investigation is at the nascent stage, there is no reason to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail applications fail and are hereby dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 7, 2026/P/AD 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27