Delhi High Court – Orders
Anup Sachdeva vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 24 July, 2026
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2193/2025
ANUP SACHDEVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Rohit
Kumar, Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr.
Naman Verma, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State.
Inspr. Pankaj Kumar Thakur, PS
EOW
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 24.07.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 21677/2026 (for modification of order dated 13.07.2026)
2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 and Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘BNSS’) seeking modification of the order dated 13.07.2026 passed in
BAIL APPLN. 2193/2025.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v.
CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, and Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement
(2024) 7 SCC 61, once the investigating agency has filed the charge-sheet
without arresting the accused, the accused cannot be directed to file a regular
bail application before the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that, in such
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
circumstances, the accused is only required to appear before the Trial Court
and furnish bonds under Section 91 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section
88 Cr.P.C.), and the direction contained in paragraph 7 of the order dated
13.07.2026 requires modification to that extent. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgement in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and Tarsem Lal (supra) are
reproduced reproduced hereinbelow:
Satender Kumar Antil (supra):
“Summary/Conclusion
100. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain
directions. These directions are meant for the
investigating agencies and also for the courts.
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the
following directions, which may be subject to State
amendments:
100.1. The Government of India may consider the
introduction of a separate enactment in the nature
of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.
100.2. The investigating agencies and their officers
are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of
Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code and the directions
issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014)
3 SCC (Cri) 449] . Any dereliction on their part has
to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities
by the court followed by appropriate action.
100.3. The courts will have to satisfy themselves on
the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code.
Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for
grant of bail.
100.4. All the State Governments and the Union
Territories are directed to facilitate Standing
Orders for the procedure to be followed under
Section 41 and 41-A of the Code while taking note
of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 7-2-
2018 in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT ofThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
Delhi) [Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448] and the
Standing Order issued by Delhi Police i.e. Standing
Order 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of
Section 41-A of the Code.
100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail
application while considering the application
under Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.
Tarsem Lal (supra)
“28. At this stage, we may refer to a decision of this
Court in Satender Kumar Antil [Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri)
1 : (2022) 10 SCR 351] . While dealing with Sections
88, 170, 204 and 209CrPC, in para 100.5, this
Court held thus : (SCC p. 136)
“100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail
application while considering the application under
Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.”
29. At this stage, we may note here that from paras
86 to 89 of the same decision, this Court dealt with
category of special Acts. In para 89, this Court held
thus : (Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender Kumar
Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri)
1 : (2022) 10 SCR 351] , SCC p. 131)
“89. We may clarify on one aspect which is on the
interpretation of Section 170 of the Code. Our
discussion made for the other offences would apply
to these cases also. To clarify this position, we may
hold that if an accused is already under
incarceration, then the same would continue, and
therefore, it is needless to say that the provision of
the Special Act would get applied thereafter. It is
only in a case where the accused is either not
arrested consciously by the prosecution or arrested
and enlarged on bail, there is no need for further
arrest at the instance of the court. Similarly, we
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
would also add that the existence of a pari materia
or a similar provision like Section 167(2) of the
Code available under the Special Act would have
the same effect entitling the accused for a default
bail. Even here the court will have to consider the
satisfaction under Section 440 of the Code.”
30. Once cognizance is taken of the offence
punishable under Section 4 PMLA, the Special
Court is seised of the matter. After the cognizance is
taken, ED and other authorities named in Section 19
cannot exercise the power of arrest of the accused
shown in the complaint. The reason is that the
accused shown in the complaint are under the
jurisdiction of the Special Court dealing with the
complaint. Therefore, after cognizance of the
complaint under Section 44(1)(b) PMLA is taken by
the court, ED and other authorities named in
Section 19 are powerless to arrest an accused
named in the complaint. Hence, in such a case, an
apprehension that ED will arrest such an accused
by exercising powers under Section 19 can never
exist.
XXX
33.3. After a summons is issued under Section
204CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 4 PMLA on a complaint,
if the accused appears before the Special Court
pursuant to the summons, he shall not be treated as
if he is in custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for
him to apply for bail. However, the Special Court
can direct the accused to furnish bond in terms of
Section 88CrPC;”
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of the present application. It is
submitted that the petitioner, under the guise of seeking modification, is in
effect seeking a review of the earlier order, which is impermissible in law.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
Reliance is placed upon Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
as well as the decision in Dolly Mukherjee vs. Chhabi Mukherjee, (1990) 2
SCC 437, to contend that no review or substantive modification of a final
judicial order is maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner
has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections
406/409/420/468/471/120B IPC. It is contended that since Section 409 IPC
carries punishment extending to imprisonment for life, the present case falls
under Category B as classified in Satender Kumar Antil (supra). It is
submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that in
Category B cases, upon appearance of the accused pursuant to process issued
by the Court, the bail application is required to be considered and decided on
its own merits. The relevant paragraph are reproduced hereinbelow:
“5. The trial courts and the High Courts will keep
in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering
bail applications. The caveat which has been put by
the learned ASG is that where the accused have not
cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before
the investigating officers, nor answered summons
when the court feels that judicial custody of the
accused is necessary for the completion of the trial,
where further investigation including a possible
recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot
give them benefit, something we agree with.
XXX
89. We may clarify on one aspect which is on the
interpretation of Section 170 of the Code. Our
discussion made for the other offences would apply
to these cases also. To clarify this position, we may
hold that if an accused is already under
incarceration, then the same would continue, andThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
therefore, it is needless to say that the provision of
the Special Act would get applied thereafter. It is
only in a case where the accused is either not
arrested consciously by the prosecution or arrested
and enlarged on bail, there is no need for further
arrest at the instance of the court. Similarly, we
would also add that the existence of a pari materia
or a similar provision like Section 167(2) of the
Code available under the Special Act would have
the same effect entitling the accused for a default
bail. Even here the court will have to consider the
satisfaction under Section 440 of the Code.”
6. Learned counsel further draws the attention of this Court to the
judgment in Satender Kumar Antil, as well Tarsem Lal, and submits that the
latter judgment arose in the context of proceedings under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act before a Special Court and cannot be applied dehors
the statutory scheme governing the present case.
7. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this
Court, being a constitutional court, is not denuded of its inherent jurisdiction
merely because the earlier order has attained finality. It is submitted that the
present application seeks only a modification to bring the earlier order in
conformity with the settled legal position and does not amount to a review
prohibited by Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Conclusion:
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused
the material placed on record.
9. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that since the
charge-sheet was filed without his arrest, he cannot be directed to move a
regular bail application before the learned Trial Court and should instead be
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
permitted to furnish bonds in terms of Section 91 of the BNSS.
10. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been charge-
sheeted, inter alia, for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC, which
is punishable with imprisonment for life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has classified offences into different
categories and has specifically provided separate guidelines for offences
punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven
years. Such cases fall under Category B, wherein the Court, upon appearance
of the accused pursuant to process issued, is required to consider the bail
application on its own merits.
11. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Tarsem Lal (supra) is
misplaced. The observations made therein arose in the context of proceedings
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the statutory
framework and the nature of the complaint before the Special Court were
materially different. The said decision cannot be read to dilute or override the
specific guidelines framed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) governing
Category B offences.
12. The submission of the respondent that the petitioner did not cooperate
during investigation and did not join the investigation are matters which shall
remain open to be considered by the learned Trial Court while adjudicating
the petitioner’s application for bail on its own merits.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to
modify the order dated 13.07.2026. The application is accordingly dismissed.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 24, 2026/b/P
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/07/2026 at 21:39:58
