Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Cheating Fiancée; Cites Unrecovered Engagement Articles, Investigation Evasion, NBWs and Need for Custodial Interrogation
Delhi High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail to Man Accused of Retaining Fiancée’s Jewellery and Cash After Refusing Marriage
Facts
The applicant, Mohd Sameer, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No. 0007/2026 registered at Jahangir Puri Police Station under Sections 75, 79 and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the complainant and applicant were engaged in connection with a proposed marriage. At the engagement, jewellery worth approximately ₹2 lakh, ₹80,000 in cash, and other articles were allegedly given to the applicant and his family.
On 30 August 2025, the complainant allegedly received a call from a woman claiming to be the applicant’s girlfriend. When confronted, the applicant allegedly abused the complainant, refused to marry her and thereafter failed to return the jewellery, cash and other articles despite repeated demands. The complaint also alleged that around June 2025, the applicant had forcibly hugged her against her will when nobody else was present at her residence.
During investigation, two notices under Section 35(3) BNSS were served upon the applicant’s family, but he did not join the investigation. Non-bailable warrants were consequently issued on 11 March 2026, and a police raid conducted on 24 March 2026 did not find him at his residence.
Issues
The principal issue was whether the applicant deserved the discretionary protection of anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the allegations, the requirement of recovery of articles, the early stage of investigation and his previous failure to cooperate with the investigating agency.
The Court also considered whether his conduct created a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or otherwise obstructing the investigation.
Applicant’s Arguments
The judgment does not separately reproduce detailed submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
However, the Court expressly considered the fact that there was approximately a six-month delay in registration of the FIR and that the applicant had subsequently joined the investigation, albeit on a date different from the one designated by the Court.
The parties had also been referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but the mediation did not result in settlement.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed anticipatory bail on the basis of the allegations in the FIR, the need to investigate and recover the articles allegedly handed over at the engagement, and the applicant’s previous conduct in avoiding investigation.
The prosecution emphasised that despite notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, the applicant failed to join the investigation, resulting in issuance of non-bailable warrants and a subsequent unsuccessful raid at his residence.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a discretionary and extraordinary protection and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510.
The Court noted that anticipatory bail ought to be granted sparingly after considering relevant factors including the specific role attributed to the accused and the possibility of absconding.
In assessing the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court considered not merely the allegations but also the stage of investigation, necessity of identifying and recovering the disputed articles, and the applicant’s conduct towards the investigating agency.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied specifically upon State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, in which the Supreme Court addressed the principles governing anticipatory bail.
Applying that decision, the High Court treated the applicant’s conduct—including his previous non-participation in investigation and issuance of NBWs—as directly relevant to whether the extraordinary discretionary protection of anticipatory bail should be granted.
No broader line of precedent was discussed in the four-page judgment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the approximately six-month delay in registration of the FIR but did not consider that circumstance sufficient to justify anticipatory bail.
It found that there were admittedly discussions of marriage between the parties and that they had in fact been engaged. The allegations concerning jewellery, cash and other articles required investigation, including determining precisely which articles were involved and effecting their recovery.
The investigation was still at a nascent stage, and the Court expressly held that custodial interrogation of the applicant was “very much required.”
Of particular significance was the applicant’s conduct. He had admittedly avoided joining or participating in the investigation when called, which resulted in issuance of NBWs. He was also not found at his residence when the police conducted a raid.
The Court further found that, considering his conduct, there were chances that granting anticipatory bail could enable him to tamper with evidence, derail the investigation or influence witnesses.
These considerations collectively weighed against granting pre-arrest protection.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the pending recovery and investigation, the applicant’s previous evasion of investigation, issuance of non-bailable warrants, need for custodial interrogation and potential risk of interference with the investigation, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial or the overall case.
Case Details
Case: Mohd Sameer v. State of NCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1554/2026
CNR: DLHC010170112026
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Reserved: 3 September 2026
Pronounced: 9 September 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail dismissed; Court found custodial interrogation necessary and relied upon the applicant’s previous evasion of investigation, NBWs and risk of interference with the investigation.
