Anticipatory Bail Is An Exceptional Remedy, Not A Routine Rule: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with caution, particularly in cases involving allegations of economic fraud and document fabrication. The court underscored that the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically dilute criminal allegations if the ingredients of an offence are prima facie established.

Justice Madhu Jain, sitting as a Vacation Judge, heard the application seeking pre-arrest bail in a matter involving allegations of financial misappropriation and forgery. The bench closely examined the conduct of the applicant and the nature of the transaction before deciding that judicial intervention at this stage would be inappropriate.

Judicial Discretion in Economic Offences

The Court observed that while anticipatory bail is intended to safeguard individual freedom against unwarranted arrest, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Relying on established precedents, the court noted that in serious cases, the grant of interim protection might lead to a miscarriage of justice or hamper investigation.

The Court has the following directions:

"The present application is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website."

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "This Court, in numerous judgments, has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences... the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case."

Impact of Forgery Allegations on Bail Indulgence

The Court, in its reasoning, further observed: "This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the MoU executed between the parties specifically provides for Delhi jurisdiction, whereas the Purchase Order relied upon by the applicant contains a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction upon Courts at Bengaluru. This aspect, coupled with the serious dispute regarding the authenticity of the Purchase Order can’t be overlooked by the Court."

Background:

The dispute arose between the Managing Director of M/s Electrical Energy Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. (EEE) and the complainant company, M/s Visual Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (VTI). The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with an FIR registered at the Economic Offences Wing for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that the applicant induced them to supply materials worth Rs. 9.31 Crores by falsely representing that payments from the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) would be routed through an Escrow Account. However, it was alleged that the applicant diverted these funds to another account and used fabricated invoices.

The State and the complainant argued that the applicant had not approached the court with clean hands, pointing to the existence of two materially different versions of a Purchase Order and the non-disclosure of payments already received. The prosecution further relied on Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. to argue that anticipatory bail is not a routine rule. The court also took note of the principles in Saurabh Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. regarding economic offences, where the Supreme Court held that the possibility of a civil remedy does not preclude criminal proceedings. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the discrepancies in the documents, the High Court dismissed the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 2026/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16739/2026
Case Title: ASWATH REDDY N v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rose Verma, Mr. Shreehari Kutsa and Mr. Kiran Naidu, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP with Ms. Shilpa Goel, Adv.; Mr. Ramchandra Nehra, IO/EOW; Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anuj Handa, Ms. Shruti Sharma, Ms. Shreya Sharma, Mr. Nishant Kandpal, Mr. Shubham Pandey, Mr. Aman Kumar Singh, Ms. Arunima Singh, Mr. Ayush Vishwakarma, Advocates for complainant.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 430