Dismissed¶28

Mo. Arshad v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC10 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./2603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Proclaimed Offender; S. 482 BNSS; Ss. 305 and 3(5) BNS 2023; FIR No. 283/2025 P.S. Govindpuri; Khas oil 200 litres valued Rs. 35 lakhs pending recovery; CCTV footage; Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564/2024; custodial interrogation; bail application dismissed; Delhi High Court; Justice Madhu Jain; Mo. Arshad; State (NCT of Delhi); Manoj Pant APP; Swati Mishra.

What did the court decide?

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, his Proclaimed Offender status, the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, and the recovery of approximately 200 litres of Khas oil yet to be effected from him; consequently, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. ¶27

Mo. Arshad Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) — Anticipatory Bail | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether an application for anticipatory bail filed by a petitioner already declared a Proclaimed Offender is maintainable. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Court weighed the petitioner's Proclaimed Offender status as one of the factors in refusing anticipatory bail and assessed the application on its merits; it made no express pronouncement on whether an anticipatory bail application by a Proclaimed Offender is maintainable (the point having been raised by the State and contested by counsel invoking Asha Dubey).

¶27

Ratio / Principle

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Appln. 2603/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1291/2026 | Mo. Arshad v. The State (NCT of Delhi) | High Court of Delhi (Madhu Jain, J) | Order dated 10.07.2026. Anticipatory-bail application under S. 482 BNSS in FIR No. 283/2025, P.S. Govindpuri (Ss. 305 and 3(5) BNS), by a petitioner already declared a Proclaimed Offender who had not challenged the proclamation order. The State (APP Manoj Pant) urged non-maintainability; counsel (Ms. Swati Mishra) argued maintainability invoking Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal No. 4564/2024) and noted that the co-accused, stated to be the petitioner's father, had already been granted regular bail. Per the Status report, the entire incident is captured in CCTV footage and approximately 200 litres of Khas oil valued around Rs. 35 lakhs is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. Weighing the nature and gravity of the allegations, the P.O. status, the CCTV footage and the pending recovery, the Court held custodial interrogation necessary and dismissed the application, along with pending application(s). No express ruling was made on the maintainability of anticipatory bail by a Proclaimed Offender.

¶1

$~70

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2603/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1291/2026

¶4

MO. ARSHAD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Swati Mishra, Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Mr. Shivam Dwivedi, Ms. Ankita Yadav, Mr. Prince Yadav, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

CRL.M.A. 19886/2026

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 2603/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1291/2026

¶13

This is an application under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNSS ’) seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 283/2025 registered at Police Station Govindpuri, Delhi, under Sections 305 and 3(5) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ BNS ’).

¶14

Issue notice.

¶15

Learned APP for the State accepts notice and submits that the Petitioner has already been declared Proclaimed Offender (P.O.) and therefore, this application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

¶16

Per contra , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 15/07/2026 at 11:33:26

¶19

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 4564/2024 , the present application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. She further submits that the co-accused has already been granted regular bail and the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when directed by this Court.

¶20

Learned APP for the State submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha Dubey ( supra ) has categorically held that every case is to be judged on its own facts and circumstances and that while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to examine the nature of the allegations as well as the background in which the proclamation was issued. He submits that the co-accused, who has been granted regular bail, is merely the father of the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings pending against him and of the various orders passed by the Court, yet he deliberately chose not to appear and did not challenge the order declaring him a Proclaimed Offender. It is further submitted that recovery of approximately 200 litres of Khas oil is yet to be effected from the petitioner and therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessary for the purposes of investigation.

¶21

As per the Status report, the entire incident is captured in the CCTV footage and despite being aware of the proceedings it seems that petition is intentionally avoiding to appear before the Court. Moreover, 200 litres of Khas oil valued at around 35 lacs is to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no document on record that the complainant was in possession of so much quantity of the khas oil.

¶23

Per contra, Learned APP for the State submits that the complainant is

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 15/07/2026 at 11:33:26

¶26

a farmer who himself cultivated the Khas crop and was in possession of the said Khas oil.

¶27

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that the petitioner has been declared a Proclaimed Offender, the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, and the fact that recovery of approximately 200 litres of Khas oil is yet to be effected from the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. No ground is, therefore, made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the present application, along with pending application(s), if any, is dismissed. 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶29

MADHU JAIN, J

¶30

JULY 10, 2026/ prg/ P

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 15/07/2026 at 11:33:26

Mo. Arshad v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo. Arshad v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chand & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of Nct, Delhi) & Anr.

M/S Ghanshyam Sewa Samiti President Lal Chand Jain Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Umar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Narender Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Naveen @ Titar Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sourav Gill Vs Central Bureau of Investigation