$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010162502026 + BAIL APPLN. 1509/2026 RAJENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: SI Piyush Vats, SI Dharmendra Sharma, PS Patil Nagar, Delhi. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 112/2026 dated 21.03.2026, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 304(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). 2. The prosecution’s case would indicate that a case of snatching was registered at PS Patel Nagar on 21.03.2026 on the complaint of Mrs. Ruchi Bhatia, alleging that on 20.03.2026 at about 7:00 PM, while returning home after picking up her children from tuition, she was intercepted near Central Bank of India, East Patel Nagar, by two unknown persons riding a 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:19 motorcycle, and the pillion rider snatched her gold chain before fleeing from the spot. During the course of investigation, CCTV footage of the incident was obtained and analysed, which revealed two helmet-wearing persons on the motorcycle, with the pillion rider, clad in a white and orange jacket, committing the act of snatching. Tracing the movement of the accused persons through multiple CCTV cameras, it was found that near La Bellace Salon, East Patel Nagar, the rider had removed his helmet, resulting in capture of his facial identity, and further tracking up to Ravidas Chowk, DBG Road led to identification of the pillion rider as Rajender Kumar, a resident of Nand Nagri, working as a driver by profession. 3. A raid conducted at his residence, however, proved futile as he was found to be absconding. It has further come on record that during enquiry, his brother-in-law Amit identified the rider as one Manjit, and disclosed that both the accused are associates, with prior involvement in similar cases of snatching, and have previously remained incarcerated. 4. The applicant’s application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court vide order dated 10.04.2026, on a consideration of the aforesaid allegations. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court by way of the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations levelled against him are totally false, frivolous, and concocted. He also undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation and is ready to comply with any conditions being imposed on him. 6. The application is opposed by Learned APP stating 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:19 allegations are serious in nature and that the applicant is evading arrest. Thus, it has been prayed that the instant anticipatory bail application may be dismissed. 7. 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 & Ors. v. State of Punjab,1. 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. 8. 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 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 Crl. Appeal No. 1340/2019, decided on 05.09.2019. 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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:19 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] 9. 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] 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that besides prima facie involvement of the applicant in the commission of the aforesaid offence, there are 12 other criminal cases of the similar nature where the applicant’s involvement has been noted. Paragraph no. 7 of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application is extracted as under: “7. At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention that allegations against the applicant/accused are that he a/w co-accused person in furtherance of their common intention snatched complainant's gold chain. Further, the offence is stated to have been captured on CCTV footage, wherein the 3 (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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:19 accused persons are seen on the spot wearing helmets, but as per the reply filed by the IO, after some tracking, even the identity of applicant/accused is stated to have been established. Further, applicant/accused has not cooperated in the investigation of the case and is stated to be evading the process of law. Furthermore, custodial interrogation of applicant may be required by the IO in order to effect recovery as well as for conducting TIP proceedings, if any. Importantly, as per the previous involvement report, applicant/accused is found to be involved in 12 criminal cases of similar nature, which seems to indicate his inclination towards committing such crimes. Moreover, the relief sought herein, cannot be resorted to in order to circumvent established procedure of law and if the relief sought is granted at this stage, then it is likely to cause prejudice to the completion of investigation in the present case.” 11. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 12. Therefore, the application stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Aks/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 10/08/2026 at 11:08:19