Dismissed¶26

Pappu Kumar v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC11 May 2026BAIL APPLN./1840/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC dismisses anticipatory bail application of RAPIDO cab driver Pappu Kumar; FIR No.80101884 dt. 27.10.2025, P.S. Delhi Cantt; S. 303(2) BNS 2023 (corresp. S. 379 IPC); missing bag unrecovered, only cab seized; applicant absconded and did not join investigation despite notice; 'Naveen' registered with RAPIDO App - unauthorized driving, material fact not disclosed; father (registered owner) earlier bailed by Trial Court; Manoj Jain J.; 11.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court, keeping in mind the applicant's conduct (he absconded immediately after the incident) and his non-revelation of the material fact that the cab was being driven in an unauthorized manner (one 'Naveen' being registered with the RAPIDO App), was not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant. ¶25

Pappu Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant (Pappu Kumar) in case FIR No.80101884 dated 27.10.2025, P.S. Delhi Cantt, for offence under Section 303(2) BNS 2023 (corresponding Section 379 IPC). +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The anticipatory bail application (BAIL APPLN. 1840/2026) was dismissed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶25

Key takeaways

CRL.M.A. 14842/2026 (exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused on conduct grounds. High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain J., oral judgment, 11.05.2026), Bail Appln. 1840/2026 by Pappu Kumar, a RAPIDO cab driver implicated in FIR No.80101884 dt. 27.10.2025, P.S. Delhi Cantt, for offence under S. 303(2) BNS 2023 (corresponding S. 379 IPC): the complainant alleged her bag went missing on a booked trip from Nizamuddin Railway Station to a Guest House at Palam Air Force Station; the applicant claimed the due fare was paid and he was duly discharged. The applicant had, however, absconded immediately after the incident and did not join investigation despite police notice; nothing was recovered with respect to the stolen bag (only the cab was seized); his father, the registered owner of the vehicle, had already been arrested and granted bail by the Trial Court. The State further revealed that one 'Naveen', not the applicant, was registered with the RAPIDO App, so the applicant had been driving the cab in an unauthorized manner - a material fact he failed to disclose. Keeping in mind this conduct and non-revelation, the Court declined relief and dismissed the application. Ancillary CRL.M.A. 14842/2026 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 11^th May, 2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1840/2026

¶5

PAPPU KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar and Ms. Priyanka Kumar, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with SI Chandrashekhar.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶11

CRL.M.A. 14842/2026 (exemption)

¶12

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 1840/2026

¶14

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.80101884 dated 27.10.2025 registered at P.S Delhi Cantt for commission of offences under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Section 379 of IPC).

¶15

According to applicant, he has been falsely implicated in the case in hand. He was driver with RAPIDO and the complainant had booked his vehicle i.e. Dzire as she was to come back from Nizamuddin Railway Station to a Guest House situated at Palam Air Force Station. According to him, the due fare was paid and the cab driver i.e. applicant was duly discharged and thereafter the complainant reported the matter to police, claiming that her one bag was missing.

¶16

As per investigating agency, the cab was taken but immediately after the complainant found her one bag to be missing, she sent message to the

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 3.05.2026 11:45:55

¶18

BAIL APPLN. 1840/2026

¶19

¶20

applicant herein and despite above, the applicant absconded. He did not join the investigation despite given due notice in this regard by the police.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that for totally unwarranted reasons, father of the applicant was also arrested for the offence in question and that he has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. During course of the arguments, copy of such bail order was shown which gives an impression as if the bail had been granted to him on account of the recovery being effected already. However, when asked in this regard, learned Addl. P.P. for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that nothing, with respect to the stolen bag, was recovered and it was only the cab in question which had been seized.

¶22

She also reveals an important aspect of the case.

¶23

She submits that father of the applicant herein was the registered owner of the vehicle in question and it was one ‘Naveen’, who was registered with RAPIDO App and thus the applicant was driving the abovesaid cab, in an unauthorized manner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was never instructed in this regard and is not aware that some third person ‘Naveen’ was registered with RAPIDO App.

¶25

Keeping in mind the conduct of the applicant, who absconded immediately after the incident and the abovesaid non-revelation of material fact, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant.

¶26