BAIL APPLN. 3160/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010358572026 + BAIL APPLN. 3160/2026 MOHAMMAD FAIZAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mitthan Lal, Mr. Mohd. Sher Ahmed, Advocates. versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate along with SI Akash Singh, ASI Rajiv, PS Laxmi Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 21.09.2026 1. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 20/2026, registered under Sections 318(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”], at P.S. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. 2. The prosecution case, to the extent relevant to the present application, is that two persons allegedly stole the complainant’s gold jewellery. One of them, posing as a fakir, induced her to smell a coin, after which she lost consciousness. During the investigation, the two persons were identified as co-accused Fahim and Irshad. In his disclosure statement, Irshad stated that part of the stolen jewellery had been sold to Rajkumar, a jeweller in 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 23/09/2026 at 10:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3160/2026 Page 2 of 4 Moradabad, while the remaining articles had been handed over to his wife, Fatima, and the present Applicant. 3. The Applicant had earlier approached the Sessions Court seeking pre- arrest bail. During the period of interim protection granted by that Court, he joined the investigation. However, the Sessions Court, vide order dated 28th July, 2026, declined pre-arrest bail, principally on the ground that recovery of the stolen jewellery had not been effected and that custodial interrogation was stated to be necessary. 4. This Court, vide order dated 06th August, 2026, found prima facie merit in the Applicant’s case and granted him interim protection, subject to his joining the investigation. The Court also noted, based on the interrogation report handed over, that the Applicant had joined the investigation and had responded to the queries put to him by the IO. 5. The status report now placed on record states that the Applicant joined the investigation on 15th September 2026 and was interrogated, pursuant to which an interrogation report was prepared. 6. It is also material that co-accused Fahim was granted regular bail by the Magistrate vide order dated 30th March 2026. Further, the status report records that co-accused Irshad was granted bail by the Sessions Court on 14th September 2026. 7. The Applicant states that he shall continue to cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the IO as and when called. 8. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the provision of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC is rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees personal liberty. Section 438 aims at protecting the personal liberty of an individual, who, at the time of seeking 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 23/09/2026 at 10:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3160/2026 Page 3 of 4 pre-arrest bail, has not been convicted of the alleged offence and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.1 9. In view of the foregoing, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of INR 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, subject to the following conditions: a. The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when directed by the IO; b. The Applicant shall not leave the country without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO; c. The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. d. The Applicant shall give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times. 10. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 11. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 1 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (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 23/09/2026 at 10:29:30 BAIL APPLN. 3160/2026 Page 4 of 4 12. The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 21, 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 23/09/2026 at 10:29:30