In Deepak v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 1522/2026 and 3266/2026 (decided 12 August 2026), Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the High Court of Delhi dismissed two connected anticipatory bail applications arising from FIRs concerning an organised scheme of theft of underground MTNL copper cables in Mayur Vihar Phase-III. The applicant was implicated through disclosure statements of a co-accused and was alleged to have orchestrated the scheme and managed sale of the stolen property. What sealed the applications, however, was conduct: despite notice and interim protection, the applicant evaded the investigation and vacated his residence. The judgment is a clear statement of how the exceptional character of pre-arrest bail interacts with an applicant's behaviour during investigation.
The allegations
Two FIRs concerned the systematic theft of underground MTNL copper cables in East Delhi — infrastructure whose loss disrupts telephone and internet connectivity for entire localities. The applicant was not named in the FIRs initially; his implication came through the disclosure statements of a co-accused. The prosecution case was that the applicant orchestrated the scheme and handled the disposal of stolen cable, attracting Sections 303(2), 62 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The conduct that decided the case
The applications did not fail on the disclosure-statement point, which the defence naturally attacked. They failed on the record of the applicant's own conduct after the investigation reached him:
Notice ignored. Despite receiving notice to join the investigation, the applicant did not meaningfully cooperate.
Residence vacated. The applicant left his known address, placing himself beyond the investigating officer's reach.
Protection consumed, obligations ignored. Interim protective orders operated in his favour while the evasion continued — the combination courts find most objectionable.
"The extraordinary power under Section 438 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only where exceptional circumstances are made out" — and organised offending coupled with evasive conduct is the opposite of an exceptional case for protection.
The framework the Court applied
Reading the decision with the wider anticipatory bail practice
Delhi decisions over the past year have repeatedly returned to the same axis: anticipatory bail protects citizens against arrest deployed as harassment, not accused persons against investigation itself. Applicants who join the investigation when called, keep their addresses on record, and comply with conditions generally retain interim protection even in serious matters. Applicants who treat interim protection as a licence to disappear find that the protection not only lapses but becomes the reason for refusal. Conduct during the pendency of a bail application is evidence — the most current evidence the court has — of how the applicant will behave if protected.
Practice points
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the statutory basis for anticipatory bail today?
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced Section 438 CrPC for proceedings governed by the new code from 1 July 2024. The substance of the remedy — a direction that in the event of arrest the applicant be released on bail — is carried forward.
Is anticipatory bail granted as a matter of course?
No. The Delhi High Court reiterated that the power is to be exercised sparingly and only where exceptional circumstances are made out. The seriousness and organisation of the alleged offence, the stage of investigation, and the applicant's conduct all weigh in the discretion.
How does evading investigation affect an anticipatory bail plea?
Severely. An applicant who fails to join the investigation despite notice, or who disappears from his known address, demonstrates precisely the propensity — to abscond and to obstruct — that pre-arrest bail presupposes is absent. Courts treat such conduct as practically disentitling.
What options remain after anticipatory bail is dismissed?
The applicant can surrender before the competent court and apply for regular bail, which is decided on its own parameters. In this case the Court expressly granted liberty to do so. Custodial interrogation, if any, then takes its course, and the regular bail court evaluates the matter on the material then available.