Delhi High Court
Puneet Gupta vs State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 30 July, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30.07.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010264172026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2322/2026 & CRL.M.A. 18235/2026
PUNEET GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Kumar and Ms. Sejal Jain,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with Mr.
Abhay Sahni, Advocate.
ACP Ashok Kumar, SI Kevendra
Singh.
Mr. Bipin Kumar Jha, Advocate for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 22725/2026 (for amendment)
The applicant seeks to amend the cause title of the captioned bail
application to include Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.
The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2322/2026
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 438 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 1 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC“]) read with Section 528 of
the BNSS [corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC], the applicant seeks
anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 0007/2026, dated 06.01.2026,
registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar, District East, Delhi, under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [“the SC/ST Act”], and Section 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. I have heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Bipin
Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – complainant.
A. PROSECUTION CASE
3. The State has placed on record a Status Report dated 17.07.2026. The
prosecution case, as emerging from the material on record, is as follows:
a. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Ram Avtar. The
complainant stated that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community
and that, in October 2023, he entered into a partnership with the
applicant in respect of a gym – ‘Vision Fitness Club’.
b. On 23.03.2024, the applicant and one Vipin Tomar, in the presence of
several persons, used caste-based derogatory words against him and
assaulted him.
c. The partnership was mutually dissolved in the presence of police
officials of Police Station Laxmi Nagar, and the complainant left the
business.
d. However, even thereafter, the applicant and his wife continued to
insult the complainant by using casteist slurs, whenever they saw him.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 2 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
e. On 15.07.2024, the applicant called one Atif Javed, who was present
at his office, situated at 332A, West Guru Angad Nagar, Laxmi
Nagar, Delhi, alongwith his friends, Atif and Abhishek. During the
said conversation, the applicant abused the complainant by using
caste-based slurs and further threatened to kill him.
f. In December 2024, an unknown person, acting at the instance of the
applicant, called the complainant and threatened him to leave Laxmi
Nagar.
g. On 30.06.2025, the applicant’s wife lodged a false complaint of
molestation/sexual harassment against the complainant. Pursuant to an
order dated 12.12.2025 of the Magistrate’s Court under Section
175(3) BNSS, FIR No. 343/2025 dated 17.12.2025, has been
registered against respondent No. 2, under Sections 75/79/351(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”].
h. In the present FIR, the statement of the complainant was recorded
under Section 183 of the BNSS, in which he corroborated the
aforesaid allegations. The statements of the eye-witnesses, Abhishek
Sharma and Atif, were also recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS,
wherein they supported the prosecution case.
i. During the course of investigation, three notices under Section 35(3)
of the BNSS were issued to the applicant on 30.03.2026, 31.03.2026,
and 13.04.2026. However, he failed to join the investigation.
j. The applicant then filed an application seeking anticipatory bail
before the Sessions Court. He was initially granted interim protection,
by order dated 23.04.2026, pursuant to which he joined theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 3 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
investigation on 30.04.2026. However, his application was
subsequently dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2026.
k. On 06.07.2026, the Sessions Court issued bailable warrants against
the applicant, returnable on 19.08.2026. His house was found to be
locked, and a copy of the bailable warrants was pasted on his house
on 15.07.2026.
l. As the instance of the applicant, FIR No. 344/2025 dated 17.12.2025,
has been registered against respondent No. 2, under Sections
118(1)/117(2)/3(5) of the BNS. He alleges therein that he is owner of
‘Vision Fitness Club’ and that, on 16.12.2025, while he was present at
his gym, 4-5 persons entered the premises with their faces covered,
armed with stick, iron rod, knife, and assaulted him on his head and
back. It is further alleged that one person stabbed him on his back.
The complainant was arrested in connection with the said case, and
was subsequently released on bail.
B. SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
4. In support of the present application, Mr. Kumar submits that the
present FIR has been registered belatedly, in respect of alleged incidents
stated to have occurred on 23.03.2024, 15.07.2024, and December 2024, and
constitutes a retaliatory measure to a complaint filed by the applicant’s wife
in relation to an incident of 28.06.2025, which was subsequently registered
as an FIR [FIR No. 343/2025 dated 17.12.2025, Police Station Laxmi
Nagar]. He submits that the complainant has himself referred to the said
incident of 28.06.2025 in the present FIR, as one of the reasons for seeking
registration of the same. It is submitted that there is no material in support of
the present FIR, which has been registered in abuse of process of Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 4 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
5. Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Jha, on the other hand, object to the
maintainability of the present application, relying upon Section 18 of the
SC/ST Act, which provides that Section 438 of the CrPC [corresponding to
Section 482 of the BNSS] is inapplicable to any case under the said Act.
They submit that the Supreme Court, in Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India and Others1, has held that anticipatory bail can be granted, only when
no prima facie case is made out. Learned counsel submit that a prima facie
case is, in fact, made out in the present case, and that two eyewitnesses have
also corroborated the allegations made by the complainant.
6. Mr. Jha also submits that the complainant has been diligently
pursuing his complaints against the applicant. He had earlier filed a
complaint before the Station House Officer [“SHO”], Police Station Laxmi
Nagar, on 30.06.2025, as also before the National Commission for
Scheduled Castes2, raising allegations similar to those contained in the FIR.
In support of the submission with regard to the maintainability of the present
application, he relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shajan
Skaria v. State of Kerala and Another3.
C. ANALYSIS
7. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act reads as follows:
“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence
under the Act.–Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to
any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having
committed an offence under this Act.”
1
(2020) 4 SCC 727 [hereinafter, “Prithvi Raj Chauhan”].
2
A copy of the said complaints have been handed over in Court, and are taken on record.
3
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 [hereinafter, “Shajan Skaria”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 5 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
8. Section 18-A was later inserted by the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 20184. Section
18-A(2) reads as follows:
“18-A. No enquiry or approval required.–
xxx xxx xxx
(2) The provisions of Section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under
this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.”
9. These provisions came up for consideration before a three-Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Chauhan. The Court held that
the provisions of Sections 18 and 18-A(2) would apply, unless the complaint
fails to make out a prima facie case for applicability of the SC/ST Act5. In a
concurring judgment, S. Ravindra Bhat, J., observed as follows:
“32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is
concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no
prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has
the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail.
33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasise that while
considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to
balance the two interests : i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the
jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases
where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further
also that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the result
would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I
consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail,
absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest
bail would defeat the intention of Parliament.
34. It is important to reiterate and emphasise that unless provisions of the Act
are enforced in their true letter and spirit, with utmost earnestness and
dispatch, the dream and ideal of a casteless society will remain only a dream,4
With effect from 20.08.2018.
5
Prithvi Raj Chauhan, paragraphs 11, 32-34.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 6 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
a mirage. The marginalisation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
communities is an enduring exclusion and is based almost solely on caste
identities. It is to address problems of a segmented society, that express
provisions of the Constitution which give effect to the idea of fraternity,
or bandhutva referred to in the Preamble, and statutes like the
Act, have been framed. These underline the social — rather collective resolve
— of ensuring that all humans are treated as humans, that their innate genius
is allowed outlets through equal opportunities and each of them is fearless in
the pursuit of her or his dreams. The question which each of us has to
address, in everyday life, is can the prevailing situation of exclusion based on
caste identity be allowed to persist in a democracy which is committed to
equality and the rule of law? If so, till when? And, most importantly, what
each one of us can do to foster this feeling of fraternity amongst all sections
of the community without reducing the concept (of fraternity) to a ritualistic
formality, a tacit acknowledgment, of the “otherness” of each one’s
6
identity.”
10. Further, in Shajan Skaria, the test to be applied was elaborated, as
follows:
“47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to “at first sight” or “based
on first impression”. The expression “where no prima facie materials exist
warranting arrest in a complaint or FIR” should be understood as “when
based on first impression, no offence is made out as shown in the FIR or the
complaint”. This means that when the necessary ingredients to constitute the
offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out upon the reading of the
complaint, no case can be said to exist prima facie.
48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence
under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on the prima facie reading of the
allegations levelled in the complaint or FIR, then in such circumstances, as
per the consistent exposition by various decisions of this Court, the bar of
Section 18 would not apply and the courts would not be absolutely precluded
from granting pre-arrest bail to the accused persons.
49. In our opinion, the aforesaid is the only test that the court should apply,
when an accused prays for anticipatory bail in connection with any offence
alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the Act, 1989. In a
given case, an accused may argue that although the allegations levelled in
the FIR or the complaint do disclose the commission of an offence under
the Act, 1989, yet the FIR or the complaint being palpably false on account6
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 7 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
of political or private vendetta, the court should consider the plea for grant
of anticipatory bail despite the specific bar of Section 18 of the Act, 1989.
However, if the accused puts forward the case of malicious prosecution on
account of political or private vendetta then the same can be considered
only by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code or in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution. However, powers under Section 438 of the CrPC
cannot be exercised once the contents of the complaint/FIR disclose a
prima facie case. In other words, if all the ingredients necessary for
constituting the offence are borne out from the complaint, then the remedy
7
of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable to the accused.”
11. The aforesaid judgments, thus, hold that the grant of anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 482 of the BNSS]
is barred, unless the ingredients of the offence are not prima facie disclosed
in the complaint or in the FIR. However, the High Court retains the
jurisdiction to consider an argument of malicious prosecution on account of
political or private vendetta, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of
the CrPC [corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], or Article 226 of the
Constitution.
12. Applying these judgments to the facts of the present case, the first
question to be answered is whether the FIR, prima facie, discloses the
ingredients of the offences alleged.
13. In the present case, the applicant is accused of offences under
Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act, which read as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–(1) Whoever, not being a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,–
xxx xxx xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste
name in any place within public view;”
7
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 8 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
14. In this regard, the relevant contents of the FIR, which was recorded in
Hindi, are extracted below:
15. Roughly translated, the aforesaid content may be summarised thus:
a. In October 2023, the complainant started a gym in partnership with
Punit Gupta under the name “VISION FITNESS CLUB”.
b. On 23.03.2024, at Mukut Complex Building No. 9/10, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi, Punit Gupta violated the agreed terms of their partnership in relation
to the gym. During a conversation held in the presence of Avi, Atif,
Abhishek, and other people who had come to exercise at the gym, Punit
Gupta and his associate Vipin Tomar physically assaulted the complainant
and addressed him by using casteist slurs such as “Chamar”.
c. Thereafter, their partnership was dissolved by mutual agreement at
Police Station Laxmi Nagar.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 9 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
d. However, in the meantime, whenever Punit Gupta and his wife, Neha
Gupta encountered the complainant on the road, they would insult him by
using casteist slurs such as “Chamar”. They would also spit on the ground
in front of the complainant while passing by, and on some occasions,
droplets of their spit fell on him.
e. Even after about two years, on 25.04.2025, Punit Gupta called a
person named Piyush Sharma and alleged that, at the complainant’s
instance, Piyush Sharma was speaking negatively about the gym to its
members. When Piyush Sharma asked, “Which Ram?”, Punit Gupta
replied, “Ram Chamar Saala who was gym trainer”.
f. Even before, on 15.07.2024, Punit Gupta called Atif Javed, when he
was present at the complainant’s office in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, with Avi
and Abhishek. During that call, Punit Gupta abused the complainant by
using casteist slurs such as “Chamar”, and also threatened to kill the
complainant, which was heard by the complainant and others present.
g. Apart from this, in the month of December 2024, the complainant
received a phone call from an unknown goon who threatened him to leave
Laxmi Nagar, at the instance of Punit Gupta.
h. Punit Gupta has also got a person named Swadesh to threaten the
complainant, regarding which he had previously submitted a complaint at
the police station.
i. On 28.06.2025, Neha Gupta, the wife of Punit Gupta, lodged a false
complaint of molestation against the complainant with the intention of
mentally and physically harassing him. Due to these continuous incidents,
the complainant is stated to have been suffering from severe mental stress
and illness.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 10 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
16. Having regard to the aforesaid contents of the FIR, and the scope of
enquiry mandated by the Supreme Court, I am unable to hold that the FIR
does not, prima facie, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. The
allegations are specific and discussed with precision. Sections 18 and 18-
A(2) of the SC/ST Act, therefore, bar the grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 482 of the BNSS].
17. Mr. Kumar, however, submitted that anticipatory bail can be granted
in exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
[corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS], or Article 226 of the
Constitution. Drawing upon the observations of the Supreme Court in
paragraph 49 of Shajan Skaria, he contended that the present case has been
instituted by the complainant as a “private vendetta”. He submitted that the
incidents which form the subject matter of the present FIR occurred in July
2024 and December 2024, but the complainant made his first complaint in
this regard only on 30.06.2025. In the complaint, he referred to the aforesaid
incidents, and also to the complaint made by the applicant and his wife
against him on the same day, while characterising the complaint of the
applicant and his wife as false and fabricated, with the intention to harass
him mentally and physically. He requested an independent investigation into
the complaints of the applicant’s wife, and also sought action under the
SC/ST Act.
18. Even accepting Mr. Kumar’s submission that this Court retains the
discretion to grant anticipatory bail in the circumstances of a “private
vendetta”, by virtue of paragraph 49 of Shajan Skaria, I do not find this to
be a fit case for exercise of that discretion. It is correct that the subject FIR
was registered only on 06.01.2026, after the applicant’s wife and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 11 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
applicant had caused two FIRs to be registered against the complainant –
both on 17.12.2025. However, the undisputed documents placed on record
by Mr. Jha show that the first complaint was made by the complainant to the
SHO and the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 30.06.2025. He thereafter
also made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
While the lodging of formal complaints was after the first complaint made
by the applicant’s wife, Mr. Kumar’s contention that this, by itself,
demonstrates a “private vendetta”, cannot be accepted. There was a pre-
existing business relationship between the applicant and the complainant.
His allegations are specific and supported by his statement under Section
183 of the BNSS, as well as statements of two eye-witnesses under Section
180 of the BNSS. In such circumstances, the timing of the complaint alone
is insufficient to establish an argument of “private vendetta”, particularly in
the face of the express statutory provisions referred to above.
19. It is expressly clarified that, in view of the aforesaid findings in the
facts of the present case, I do not render any conclusive opinion on whether
the High Court is empowered to grant anticipatory bail in respect of offences
under the SC/ST Act, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the
BNSS [corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC], or Article 226 of the
Constitution, as argued by Mr. Kumar.
20. Having regard to the statutory mandate, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments, I do not consider this to be an exceptional
case, in which the power to grant anticipatory bail can be exercised. As
noted above, in matters arising under the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court has
cautioned that the said power is required to be exercised with
circumspection and only in exceptional cases, as a liberal exercise of such
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 12 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
jurisdiction would risk defeating the legislative intent underlying the
enactment.
D. CONCLUSION:
21. The bail application, alongwith pending application, is accordingly
dismissed.
22. It is made clear that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
23. Similarly, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the FIRs
filed by the applicant or his wife against the complaint herein.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 30, 2026
PV/KA/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL.APPLN. 2322/2026 Page 13 of 13
VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2026
19:05:59
