Bail Plea Dismissed as Abuse of Process: Delhi HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Citing Persistent Evasion [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a fifth anticipatory bail application arising from a long-running dispute involving alleged fraudulent transfer and utilisation of export incentive scrips, holding that successive bail pleas were not maintainable and that the applicant’s conduct reflected deliberate evasion of investigation.

The Court noted that the applicant had already been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (CrPC), leaving no ground for pre-arrest protection.

Section 82 of BNSS states:

“Procedure on arrest of person against whom warrant issued –

(1) When a warrant of arrest is executed outside the district in which it was issued, the person arrested shall, unless the Court which issued the warrant is within thirty kilometres of the place of arrest or is nearer than the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the arrest was made, or unless security is taken under section 73, be taken before such Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner.

(2) On the arrest of any person referred to in sub-section (1), the police officer shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and the place where the arrested person is being held to the designated police officer in the district and to such officer of another district where the arrested person normally resides.”

The applicant, Suresh Kumar Jain, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC along with provisions of the Information Technology Act relating to impersonation, forgery and fraudulent transfer of RoSCTL scrips.

He asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser of the licences, had fully cooperated with the investigation, and was being harassed at the insistence of the complainant.

It was argued that the chargesheet initially treated him as a victim, that no incriminating material was found during investigation, and that medical conditions prevented him from complying with certain notices.

The State opposed the plea by highlighting repeated non-appearance despite multiple notices under Sections 41A and 160, submission of a fabricated medical certificate, and consistent avoidance of investigation.

The prosecution emphasised that the applicant had failed to comply with the condition of depositing ₹1 crore imposed by the High Court in an earlier bail order, a condition upheld when challenged before the Supreme Court.

It was further submitted that the applicant repeatedly changed addresses, misled courts about residential details, avoided warrants, and was eventually subjected to proclamation proceedings under Section 82.

The Court, presided over by Justice NeenaBansal Krishna, observed that the applicant had filed multiple anticipatory bail applications before both the Sessions Court and the High Court, several of which were withdrawn after unfavourable observations. Referring to Supreme Court precedents such as Ananda Babu and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, the Court reiterated that successive anticipatory bail applications are impermissible unless a substantial change in circumstances is shown. No such change had been demonstrated.

The Court also noted that custodial interrogation may be essential in cases involving layered financial transactions and alleged fraudulent transfers.

Finding no merit in the plea and noting the applicant’s “persistent non-cooperation” and “continued evasion of law enforcement”, the High Court held that a person who stands proclaimed under Section 82 cannot seek anticipatory bail. The application was accordingly dismissed, and all pending motions were disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates