The Delhi High Court has granted limited protection from arrest to Subhash Kumar Anubhavi in a case involving alleged unauthorised banking transactions and offences under Sections 303(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Justice Sachin Datta, by order dated October 6, 2026, observed that the petitioner had already joined the investigation, the alleged offences carried a maximum punishment of up to three years, and the money trail was traceable through bank account records. The Court therefore directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing, subject to his continued cooperation with the investigation.
The case is significant because the Court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding routine arrests and the requirement for the investigating agency to demonstrate why custodial interrogation is actually necessary.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Subhash Kumar Anubhavi v. State of NCT of Delhi |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Case Number | Bail Appln. 4251/2026, CRL.M.A.s 31369-371/2026 |
| Date of Decision | October 6, 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Sachin Datta |
| Provision for Anticipatory Bail | Section 482, BNSS, 2023 |
| Offences Alleged | Sections 303(2) and 317(2), BNS, 2023 |
| FIR | e-FIR No. 80001589/2025 |
| Police Station | Gulabi Bagh, Delhi |
The judgment records that the application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail and interim protection from arrest.
Facts of the Case
The complainant, Dr. B.K. Kanhar, reported the theft of his mobile phone at Shani Bazar, Gulabi Bagh, on December 28, 2024.
According to the prosecution case, the theft was followed by 12 unauthorised banking transactions between December 29, 2024 and January 1, 2025. A total amount of ₹2,95,000 was allegedly debited from the complainant’s SBI account.
The allegation against the petitioner was that ₹1,00,000 was credited into his Indian Bank account and that he subsequently withdrew the amount.
Petitioner’s Explanation
The petitioner stated that during 2024-25 he was running a food stall at Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
According to his explanation, a person named Abhishek Golande had visited his stall several times and gained his confidence. Golande allegedly told the petitioner that he was unable to withdraw money from his own bank account because of his mother’s mental health condition and requested the petitioner to receive money in his account.
An amount of ₹1,00,000 was subsequently credited into the petitioner’s account. The petitioner claimed that he withdrew the money and handed it over to Golande without knowing that the money had an unlawful source. The investigating officer’s additional reply also recorded that the petitioner knew another person, Shiv Shankar Pathak alias Aditya.
Earlier Anticipatory Bail Proceedings
The petitioner had previously approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by filing Bail Matters No. 1052/2026.
On May 26, 2026, the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation and directed that no coercive process be taken against him until then.
However, on July 2, 2026, the application was dismissed. The Sessions Court noted that the investigation was continuing, co-accused persons had not yet been arrested and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was stated to be required.
Petitioner Had Joined the Investigation
Before the Delhi High Court, it was brought on record that the petitioner had joined the investigation pursuant to the order dated May 26, 2026.
The investigating officer’s earlier reply recorded that the petitioner had been interrogated at length and had made the requisite disclosures. Importantly, the reply did not allege that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The prosecution nevertheless opposed protection on the grounds that the petitioner resided in Ranchi, custodial interrogation was required for arresting other accused persons, and there was a possibility that he could tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or abscond.
Undertakings Given by the Petitioner
During the hearing, the petitioner undertook to provide the investigating officer with all information available to him concerning the identity and whereabouts of the co-accused.
He also undertook to:
- Continue appearing before the investigating officer whenever called;
- Not tamper with evidence;
- Not influence any witness; and
- Not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
These undertakings were taken into consideration by the High Court while deciding whether limited protection should be granted.
Legal Issues Before the Delhi High Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner should receive protection from arrest when he had already joined the investigation and the State claimed that custodial interrogation was necessary.
The Court also considered the nature of the alleged offences, the maximum punishment prescribed, the availability of the money trail through banking records and the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Maximum Punishment for the Alleged Offences
The Court noted that the offences alleged under Section 303(2) of the BNS, for a first conviction, and Section 317(2) of the BNS are each punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years.
The nature and maximum punishment of the alleged offences were therefore relevant considerations while examining the necessity of arrest.
Arrest Cannot Be Made Routinely
The Delhi High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that merely because an offence is cognizable and non-bailable, an accused should not automatically be arrested. The power to arrest and the justification for exercising that power are separate questions.
The judgment also referred to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, where the Supreme Court observed that arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to exceptional situations where arrest is imperative.
Mere Claim of Custodial Interrogation Is Not Enough
The Court also relied upon Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh, (2024) 12 SCC 199.
The Supreme Court had held that a mere assertion by the State that custodial interrogation is required is insufficient. The State must indicate, at least prima facie, why custodial interrogation is necessary for the investigation.
This principle was particularly relevant because the petitioner had already joined the investigation and had been interrogated.
Why the High Court Granted Protection
The Court considered the totality of the circumstances.
The important factors included:
- The petitioner had joined the investigation.
- He had undertaken to cooperate with the investigating officer.
- He had undertaken to provide information concerning the co-accused.
- He had agreed not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- He had agreed not to leave the country without permission.
- The maximum punishment for the alleged offences was up to three years.
- The money trail was traceable through bank account records.
Taking these factors together, the Court found it appropriate to grant limited protection to the petitioner at that stage.
Delhi High Court’s Order
The Court directed that, until the next date of hearing, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner in connection with e-FIR No. 80001589/2025 registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
The protection was made conditional upon the petitioner continuing to join and cooperate with the investigation whenever required and complying with the undertakings given before the Court.
The State was also directed to file a status report before the next date of hearing. The matter was listed for January 27, 2027.
Ratio Decidendi
The judgment reinforces the principle that arrest should not be treated as an automatic consequence of registration of a criminal case, particularly where the accused has joined the investigation and is cooperating with the investigating agency.
Where the State relies upon custodial interrogation to oppose anticipatory bail, it must provide more than a bare assertion that such interrogation is necessary. The necessity for custodial interrogation must be demonstrated in the circumstances of the particular case.
In the present matter, the petitioner’s cooperation, the traceability of the alleged money trail through bank records, the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences and the undertakings furnished by him collectively justified limited protection from coercive action.
Important Precedents Relied Upon
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 | Arrest should not be made routinely merely because an offence is cognizable and non-bailable. |
| Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 | Arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to exceptional cases where it is imperative. |
| Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory Chandigarh, (2024) 12 SCC 199 | A mere assertion that custodial interrogation is required is insufficient; the State must indicate why such interrogation is necessary. |
These precedents were specifically referred to in the High Court’s reasoning concerning arrest and custodial interrogation.
What This Judgment Means for Anticipatory Bail
The decision is important for anticipatory bail proceedings because it demonstrates that the Court may examine the actual necessity of arrest, rather than treating arrest as an inevitable consequence of an allegation.
The accused’s conduct during investigation can also be significant. In this case, the petitioner’s joining the investigation and his undertaking to continue cooperating were among the circumstances considered by the Court.
At the same time, the order granted only limited protection until the next date of hearing. It did not finally determine the petitioner’s guilt or innocence, and the Court expressly clarified that its observations should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court granted limited protection from arrest to Subhash Kumar Anubhavi.
- The case involved alleged unauthorised banking transactions following the theft of a mobile phone.
- ₹2.95 lakh was allegedly debited from the complainant’s bank account.
- ₹1 lakh was allegedly credited into the petitioner’s account.
- The petitioner had already joined the investigation.
- The alleged offences carried a maximum punishment of up to three years.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court principles against routine arrests.
- A mere assertion that custodial interrogation is required is not sufficient.
- The Court considered the traceability of the money trail through bank records.
- Protection was conditional upon continued cooperation with the investigation.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Subhash Kumar Anubhavi v. State of NCT of Delhi reiterates an important safeguard in criminal procedure: the existence of the power to arrest does not by itself establish the necessity to exercise that power.
Where an accused has joined the investigation, cooperated with the investigating agency and the relevant evidence, including a financial trail, is capable of being traced through documentary records, the investigating agency must still demonstrate why custodial interrogation is necessary.
The order therefore reinforces the Supreme Court’s established approach that arrest should not be routine and that custodial interrogation must be justified on the facts of the particular case.
