Delhi High Court Holds Disclosure Statement Alone Cannot Justify Arrest; Grants Anticipatory Bail to Tenant Whose Office Was Allegedly Misused by Co-Accused
Facts
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alleging a ₹57 lakh college admission scam. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s office premises were used by the co-accused to operate a racket promising admissions in a Mumbai college. Several persons allegedly paid a total of ₹57 lakh but neither received admission nor refunds.
The petitioner contended that he had merely permitted his friends to use his office for running a property dealing business and had no knowledge of their alleged illegal activities. It was undisputed that no part of the allegedly cheated money had been received by him. The Investigating Officer had also not issued any notice requiring him to join the investigation even after rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court.
Issues
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused’s office premises were allegedly used for committing the offence but there was no direct evidence of his involvement.
- Whether custodial interrogation was necessary in the absence of any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged cheating.
- Whether the disclosure statement of co-accused alone was sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- No legally admissible evidence connected the petitioner with the alleged fraud.
- The prosecution itself admitted that not a single rupee of the cheated amount had been received by him.
- His role was limited to permitting friends to use his office premises.
- A co-accused had already been granted regular bail.
- Despite rejection of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, the Investigating Officer never called him to join the investigation, demonstrating that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the application but fairly admitted that:
- Apart from the disclosure statement of a co-accused, there was no independent evidence against the petitioner.
- The rent agreement of the office premises had been collected during investigation.
- The Investigating Officer could not explain why no notice had been issued to the petitioner for joining the investigation and merely stated that such notice would now be issued.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail depends upon the nature of allegations, the available evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Where an accused has not received any proceeds of the alleged crime, there is no independent incriminating material, and the investigation does not genuinely require custodial interrogation, denial of liberty would be unjustified. A person’s association with co-accused or ownership of premises allegedly used for an offence does not automatically establish criminal liability.
Precedent Analysis
The order does not cite any judicial precedent. Instead, the Court based its decision on the factual matrix, particularly:
- absence of independent evidence,
- absence of any money trail,
- lack of investigative necessity,
- failure of the police to require the petitioner to join investigation despite earlier rejection of bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the only material against the petitioner was that his office premises had allegedly been misused by his friends, who were the co-accused. Importantly:
- no cheated money had been traced to the petitioner;
- the prosecution admitted the absence of independent evidence;
- the Investigating Officer himself had shown no urgency to interrogate the petitioner by failing to issue any notice after rejection of anticipatory bail.
Considering these circumstances, the Court held that there was no justification to deprive the petitioner of his liberty merely because his premises had allegedly been used by others. Since custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary, anticipatory bail deserved to be granted.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court further directed the petitioner to join the investigation whenever called upon in writing by the Investigating Officer.
Case Details
Case: Chandan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2990/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 30 July 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety and joining the investigation whenever required in writing by the Investigating Officer.
