Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAVDEEP KHATRI .....Applicant
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sujeet Beniwal, Mr. Bharat, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Ayush Kr.
Singh, Ms. Kashish Ahuja, Ms. Rekha Punya, Mr. Amartiya, Mr. Arjan Akhtar, Mr. K. Nagpal and
Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Advs.
Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, SPP with Mr. Mukul Katyal, Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Tiwari (IO)
Mohd. Zafar Khan, Adv. for complainant.
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.RC0032026A0029 dated 04.05.2026 registered at PS.: CBI, ACB New Delhi under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
2. As per FIR, the complainant, a private contractor undertaking construction at Plot No.2596-2597, Ward No. 07, Anaar Wali Gali, Katra Gafoor Baksh, Mohalla Nihariyan, G.B. Road, Delhi, was approached by co-accused Lokesh, who allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-. He threatened that in case of non-payment thereof, he would bring the applicant, the Junior Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), City S.P. Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi to demolish the under-construction building. Persuant to the above, the Verification Officer, CBI, ACB, Delhi, in the presence of an independent witness verified the complaint on 30.04.2026, and submitted a Character Antecedent Report (CA report) dated 04.05.2026 alleging the existence of a prima facie case.
3. Based thereon the present FIR was registered. Following it, a trap was laid down, wherein on 05.05.2026 co-accused Lokesh and Lovesh were allegedly apprehended while demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on behalf of the applicant. Since the applicant failed to join investigation and remained absconding, the learned Trial Court issued two Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) on 30.05.2026 and 06.06.2026, and subsequently declared him a Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 01.07.2026.
4. In this factual backdrop, this Court has heard learned senior counsel for the applicant as also the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
5. As borne out, though no recovery has been effected from the person or residence of the applicant, however, it is not in dispute that the coaccused persons were red handedly caught demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant allegedly on behalf of the applicant. Moreover, vide letter dated 15.05.2026, CBI informed the Deputy Comissioner, City S.P. Zone, Kashmere Gate, Delhi about the registration of the aforesaid FIR against the applicant, pursuant whereto, a letter of even date was issued to the applicant, wherein he was directed to remain present at office of the CBI, ACB New Delhi on 16.05.2026. In fact, in its reply dated 18.05.2026, MCD informed the CBI, ACB New Delhi that “his house was found locked and letter was safely thrown inside the residential premises by department peon on dated 16.05.2026 at 06:00 A.M”.
6. Despite being notified about the registration of the present FIR and the ongoing investigation by the MCD where he was/ is working, the applicant failed to join investigation as he has been absconding ever since the arrest of the co-accused person on 05.05.2026 i.e. for more than two months. As afore-noted, it is also not denied that as many as two NBWs have been issued before he was declared as a Proclaimed Offender by the learned Trial Court.
7. The aforesaid, especially the conduct of the applicant post arrest of the co-accused of not joining investigation raises a suspicion, and does not make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, particularly, since, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 574, this Court is required to exercise more caution and stringency in granting an anticipatory bail.
8. Additionally, since the complainant has made a specific complaint on 12.05.2026 alleging that he is receiving threats and being pressurised by the applicant and his associates, the same is a relevant factor at this stage for denying anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. Under such circumstances, it cannot be ignored that the applicant is a public servant holding a position of significant importance and influence.
10. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, the present application is dismissed.
11. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J. JULY, 15, 2026 So/DA