Successfully represented the petitioner before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in BAIL APPLN. 1187/2026, wherein, by order dated 20.07.2026, the Court granted anticipatory bail in FIR No. 132/2022 registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
The petitioner was not named in the FIR, and his alleged involvement surfaced only during the course of investigation on the basis of financial transactions purportedly linked to the principal accused. The prosecution sought custodial interrogation alleging receipt of funds and concealment of certain bank accounts.
Appearing for the petitioner, it was consistently argued that the allegations rested primarily on documentary material and banking records, that the petitioner was merely the brother-in-law of the principal accused, and that no material established his participation in the alleged conspiracy. Particular emphasis was placed on the petitioner’s conduct throughout the investigation. Even during the period when interim protection had been granted by the learned Sessions Court, prior to the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application, the petitioner had joined the investigation whenever called upon and extended complete cooperation. Following the rejection of the application by the Sessions Court, interim protection was again secured from the Hon’ble High Court, during the pendency of which the petitioner continued to join the investigation on every occasion and faithfully complied with all directions issued by the Investigating Officer.
The Hon’ble High Court accepted the submission that the petitioner’s consistent cooperation, despite the rejection of his application before the Sessions Court, decisively undermined the prosecution’s plea for custodial interrogation. The Court observed that there was no material suggesting any attempt to evade the investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. Considering that the prosecution case was founded substantially on documentary and banking records already in the possession of the investigating agency, and relying upon the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and P. Chidambaram v. CBI, the Court held that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and granted anticipatory bail subject to the statutory conditions.