$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010364732026 + BAIL APPLN. 3210/2026 SAGAR NARAYAN TIWARI @ SURAJ RAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rupendra Kr. Karn and Mr.Nagmani Kumar, Advocates. versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State with SI Rahul Ranjan, PS Harsh Vihar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 10.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 24164/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 3210/2026 1. By way of the instant application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.24/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 403/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), registered at PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi. The applicant had earlier approached the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, under Section 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 11:00:27 482 BNSS, and the said application came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2026. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, arising out of a commercial arrangement between the applicant and the complainant for operation of a commercial vehicle, and that any alleged breach of the terms thereof would, at best, give rise to a civil remedy and not a criminal prosecution. He further submits that the essential ingredient of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, which is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 420 IPC, is conspicuously absent, and that since possession of the vehicle originated from a lawful entrustment under a commercial arrangement, no case under Section 403 IPC is made out either. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle in question stands recovered from one Mukesh Kumar and not from the applicant, and that this crucial aspect has not been dealt with by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order inasmuch as it records no independent satisfaction as to the necessity of custodial interrogation, and merely reproduces the list of criminal antecedents furnished by the Investigating Officer without any finding as to whether the applicant stands convicted in any of the said matters or whether the same are still pending adjudication. 4. It is further contended that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot constitute an absolute embargo against grant of anticipatory bail, and that the apprehension of the applicant absconding or influencing witnesses is wholly speculative and unsupported by any material on record. Learned 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 counsel submits that the applicant has deep roots in society, undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. It is also submitted that the applicant’s brother is suffering from an advanced stage of blood cancer and requires the applicant’s assistance, which is urged as an additional ground warranting grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Submissions made on behalf of the applicant are opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that apart from the vehicle, the applicant had also taken a sum of Rs.3,11,000/- from the complainant, which stands neither returned nor accounted for, and that the applicant neither paid the agreed rent nor rendered accounts qua the vehicle. 6. It is submitted that the applicant is involved in a large number of cases of fraud and criminal breach of trust registered in the States of Bihar and West Bengal, and that in one such matter, the Patna High Court has itself declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Learned APP for the State submits that the applicant is involved in multiple cases bearing similar allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, that his custodial interrogation is essential to unearth the full extent and modus operandi of the offences, and that having regard to the applicant’s antecedents, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 8. The facts of the case would indicate that the applicant and the complainant had entered into an agreement by way of executing a Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement dated 27.11.2020, whereby the complainant 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 agreed to hand over his car, a Maruti Dzire LXi, on a monthly lease rent of Rs.22,000/-, together with an additional payment @ Rs.8/km beyond 3500 km. The vehicle was handed over to the applicant pursuant to the said agreement. On account of the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, it appears that the rent was not paid in a timely manner, giving rise to a dispute between the parties. 9. It further appears that the complainant, thereafter, came to know that his vehicle had been found involved in the commission of an offence under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, in connection with which FIR No.750/2023 came to be registered, and that the complainant’s vehicle was seized in the said proceedings. It also appears that a second vehicle was handed over by the complainant to the applicant on a false pretext. The complainant additionally alleges that a sum of Rs.3,11,000/-, ostensibly taken for purchase of a new vehicle/conversion of the vehicle into a commercial vehicle, was never returned or accounted for. 10. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court would indicate that there are around 19 to 20 cases pending against the applicant in the States of Bihar and West Bengal, involving allegations under Sections 406, 409, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504 and 506 IPC, besides proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that in one such matter, the Patna High Court has itself declined anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the said antecedents, has recorded that custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary for the concerned Investigating Agency, and has accordingly declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been 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 succinctly and authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab1. It was held that the power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to protect personal liberty and is to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench further held that while exercising such discretion, the Court must strike a balance between the individual’s right to personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. It was also observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted on vague or general apprehensions and that no inflexible restrictions or conditions, not envisaged by the statute, can be imposed while considering an application under Section 438 CrPC. 12. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement2 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] 1 (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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27 13. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Mohd. Sajid Hussain Mohd. S. Husain3 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] 14. Additionally, insofar as the weight to be attached to the criminal antecedents of an applicant is concerned, the Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.4has held that where an accused is shown to be a history-sheeter involved in a series of similar offences, such antecedents cannot be brushed aside, and neither the doctrine of parity nor the plea of the dispute being civil in nature can be permitted to override the necessity of custodial scrutiny. Paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no 2 Crl. Appeal No. 1340/2019, decided on 05.09.2019. 3 (2008) 1 SCC 213. 4 (2014) 16 SCC 508. 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 stretch of imagination can be regarded as jejune.” 15. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is unable to accept the submission that the dispute between the parties is purely commercial or civil in nature. The record shows that the applicant is facing approximately 19 to 20 similar proceedings across the States of Bihar and West Bengal, virtually all of which allege a similar modus operandi, namely, inducement of the complainant to part with a vehicle or money under the guise of a commercial or lease arrangement, followed by non-payment and non-return of the vehicle or the money entrusted. 16. The vehicle in the present case has also surfaced in an unrelated criminal proceeding under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, and a second vehicle was, on the complainant’s own showing, obtained on a false pretext. These circumstances, considered cumulatively, disclose a consistent pattern rather than an isolated commercial dispute, and the plea that the ingredient of dishonest intention at inception is absent cannot be examined divorced from this pattern of conduct, which is a matter requiring investigation rather than adjudication at the stage of anticipatory bail. 17. The submission that the impugned order does not independently deal with the recovery of the vehicle from a third party does not, in this Court’s view, detract from the necessity of custodial interrogation, since the applicant’s role, the trail of the second vehicle, and the amount of Rs.3,11,000/- allegedly taken from the complainant are all matters that squarely fall within the domain of investigation. 18. The fact that the Patna High Court has itself declined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in a similar matter further reinforces 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 13/08/2026 at 11:00:27 view that the applicant’s antecedents cannot be treated lightly. As held in Neeru Yadav (supra), antecedents of this nature cannot be diluted by invoking the plea of parity or by characterising the transaction as purely civil, particularly where the underlying pattern is one of recurring similar allegations across jurisdictions. 19. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the antecedents of the applicant, the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and effective investigation, and in the absence of any perversity in the impugned order, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the Trial Court. 20. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application stands rejected. 21. Nothing observed hereinabove shall tantamount to any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 10, 2026 Nc/NK 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