$~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010410502026 + BAIL APPLN. 3630/2026 DHARMENDRA SINGH@ RAHUL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Uma Shanker Gautam & Mr. Nikhil, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP with SI Kiran Sethi & SI Virender. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 26964/2026 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 3630/2026 3. This application, filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 101/2026, registered at Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/143(2)/144(1)/144(2)/64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:24 (“BNS”), read with Sections 6/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), and Sections 3/4/5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (“ITPA”). 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the FIR came to be registered at the instance of one of the rescued girls. The victim/complainant has alleged that the applicant, along with the other co-accused persons, ran Kotha No. 56, First Floor, S.N. Marg, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, where the victim, a minor, was called upon to have sexual relations with customers and was threatened.Specific allegations have been levelled against the applicant and his wife, the applicant being stated to be the owner of the said premises. Upon a raid being conducted at the premises, eight girls, along with the minor victim, were rescued, and a number of articles came to be recovered, including 33 grams of ganja, cash amounting to Rs. 1,97,040/-, foreign currency notes, used and unused condoms, semen-stained cloth piece, round tokens, two knives, yellow slips bearing transaction details, medicines, and eight diaries and notebooks. 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no connection with the kotha where the raid was conducted; that his ownership of the premises is doubtful and that he was not found present at the time of the raid; that he and his wife are living separately and are not engaged in any illegal or immoral activity; and that none of the witnesses has named him. It is contended that the applicant has clean antecedents, there being no criminal case pending against him, and that he is ready to join the investigation.He, therefore, prays to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 6. The application is opposed by the APP for the State, who submits that the applicant has remained non-cooperative and that proceedings under 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:24 Section 84 of the BNSS have been initiated against him. It is submitted that the applicant’s wife is already lodged in judicial custody and that the allegations are grave. It is submitted that the complicity of the applicant has surfaced, and that, unless the applicant surrenders and is taken into custody, the investigation cannot be carried to its logical conclusion. It is pointed out that the FIR came to be registered at the instance of one of the rescued girls, and it is, thus, contended that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,1 wherein it was held that the power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary discretionary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, upon a careful balancing of the individual’s right to personal liberty against the investigational powers of the police. 9. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,2 the Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule, and that the Court must remain circumspect, since the grant of such bail interferes, to an extent, with the investigation of an offence. 10. It is, further, well settled that a person who is evading the process of law, and against whom proceedings for proclamation have been initiated, is ordinarily not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. In State 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565. 2(2019) 9 SCC 24. 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:24 of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma,3 the Supreme Court held that where a person is absconding and has been declared a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. This principle was reiterated in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar,4 wherein it was held that the initiation of proceedings for proclamation is a relevant consideration which cannot be ignored while examining a prayer for anticipatory bail. 11. Insofar as the necessity of custodial interrogation is concerned, in State (through CBI) v. Anil Sharma,5 the Supreme Court observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than the questioning of a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the allegations against the applicant, of running a brothel in which a minor victim was subjected to sexual exploitation, are grave, and his complicity has, prima facie, surfaced from the statement of the victim. 13. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the view that, unless the applicant is taken into custody, the investigation cannot be carried to its logical conclusion. 14. It is, moreover, borne out from the record that the applicant has remained non-cooperative, that proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS have been initiated against him, and that it is only when he was about to be declared a proclaimed offender that he has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The overall conduct of the applicant, thus, does not entitle him to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 3(2014) 2 SCC 171. 4(2022) 14 SCC 516. 5(1997) 7 SCC 187. 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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:24 15. Accordingly, the application seeking anticipatory bail is found to be without merit, and the same is dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 ab/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 05/09/2026 at 09:45:24