Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Proclaimed-Offender Advocate in Assault Case

The Court's decision

Justice Girish Kathpalia pronounced judgment on 28 October 2026 in Vikas Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, BAIL APPLN. 3394/2026. The Court rejected an anticipatory-bail request arising from FIR No. 04/2026 registered at Laxmi Nagar police station. The applicant had already been declared a proclaimed offender. The High Court held that neither his profession nor the material placed before it justified the exceptional relief sought.

The Court's reasoning did not establish a blanket rule that every proclaimed offender is legally incapable of seeking anticipatory bail. It recognised the possibility of relief in an exceptional case, but found no such case on the present record. The ruling was confined to the bail application and the accompanying requests; it was not a conviction or a final finding of guilt after trial.

Allegations and investigation

The prosecution case arose from a dispute involving a gym operated in the basement of a complainant family's residence. According to the police account recorded in the judgment, a confrontation on 2 January 2026 escalated into allegations of assault, molestation and public humiliation. The complainant alleged that several accused persons attacked family members and that one injured person was stripped in public. Medical records, police statements and CCTV footage were discussed during the bail hearing.

These descriptions concern the prosecution's allegations and material considered for interim protection. They must not be reported as a final determination that the accused committed the offences. The judgment recorded allegations under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including provisions concerning hurt, restraint, trespass, assault on a woman and intimidation. The investigating agency also sought custodial interrogation in connection with a missing recording device from the gym's CCTV system.

When a proclaimed offender can seek protection

The applicant's lawyers argued that a proclaimed offender may still receive anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances. They also challenged the prosecution's assessment of the evidence and argued that the applicant had joined the investigation. The State countered that the applicant had avoided investigative steps, that non-bailable warrants remained operative and that custodial interrogation was required. The Court assessed those competing submissions rather than treating the professional standing of counsel as decisive.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at (2026) 6 SCC 216, the High Court explained that relief to an absconding accused is exceptional, particularly where the record does not show that no prima facie case exists. The judge also considered the applicant's reliance on Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The important distinction is between the legal possibility of bail and whether the facts justify exercising that discretion.

Evidence and conduct considered

The Court referred to the alleged use of a heavy gym rod, medical evidence of injury and the humiliating character of the reported disrobing. It noted that CCTV footage had been played during a hearing and considered the prosecution's claim that the applicant's custodial interrogation was necessary to recover a missing DVR. Discrepancies in the recording of the side of a facial injury were held insufficient to justify pre-arrest protection at this stage; the judge observed that such matters could be tested at trial.

The judgment also examined the applicant's conduct during the investigation. It recorded repeated efforts to trace him, the existence of non-bailable warrants and the later proclamation order. The applicant argued that the magistrate should not have proceeded while the bail application was pending. The High Court rejected that submission because no operative order had stayed the proclamation proceedings.

Professional status and legal significance

The applicant urged the Court to treat his standing as a practising advocate as a factor favouring bail. Justice Kathpalia disagreed. The judgment emphasised that the respect due to advocates as officers of the court does not provide a special shield against ordinary criminal process. It also noted the applicant's recording of his own police interrogation and the consequences that followed for the investigating officer.

The ruling illustrates that anticipatory bail requires a fact-specific assessment of the allegations, investigation, conduct of the accused and need for custody. It does not displace the presumption of innocence. Following dismissal of the applications, the criminal investigation and any subsequent trial remain governed by the ordinary procedure and the evidence ultimately proved in court.

Relevant Bare Act

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 84.