In Md. Saif Rabbani v. State (NCT of Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 3651/2026, decided 5 November 2026), Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in an Economic Offences Wing case concerning an unregistered portfolio-management scheme that allegedly collected about Rs 12.96 crore from investors. The decision adds another clear data point to Delhi’s steadily hardening approach: in economic offences, pre-arrest protection is the exception, and corporate exits do not rewrite corporate history.
The case in one view
| Case | Md. Saif Rabbani v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3651/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Mini Pushkarna |
| Decided | 5 November 2026 |
| FIR | No. 143/2025, Economic Offences Wing — Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC |
| Allegation | Unregistered portfolio-management scheme collecting about Rs 12.96 crore from investors |
| Outcome | Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS dismissed |
The scheme and the defence
The prosecution’s case concerns investor money gathered through a portfolio-management arrangement operating without the registration that such activity requires. The collected corpus — about Rs 12.96 crore — is the subject of the EOW’s investigation into how it was solicited, deployed and lost to the investors who parted with it.
The petitioner’s defence was positional: he was a shareholder, and he had resigned as director. The submission, in essence, was that whatever the company did, his exit placed him outside the ring of responsibility. Justice Pushkarna rejected the premise — the resignation did not negate his role during the period before it. The investigation legitimately extends to what each functionary did while the scheme was collecting money, and a later resignation cannot retrospectively launder that period.
The doctrinal frame
What this means for directors and shareholders
Delhi’s EOW docket is dense with collective-investment and portfolio schemes, and the exposure of individual functionaries follows function, not title. Three distinctions matter in practice. First, the period of office: liability tracks conduct while in the chair, so the precise dates of appointment and resignation — and the Form DIR-12 trail proving them — should be assembled before any court appearance. Second, the role actually played: signing authority, investor-facing representations and control over accounts weigh far more than the bare description of shareholder or director. Third, the money: a functionary who can show he neither received nor routed scheme funds stands on materially better ground, because the custodial-interrogation rationale weakens where there is no trail to extract.
The current legal map
The FIR invokes the IPC because the conduct predates 1 July 2024. For later conduct, the corresponding provisions are Sections 316 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (criminal breach of trust and cheating) with Section 61 (criminal conspiracy), and the anticipatory bail jurisdiction is Section 482 BNSS — under which this very application was decided.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does resigning as director protect against prosecution for earlier conduct?
No. The Court held that the petitioner's resignation did not negate his role during the period he served. Liability in investor-fraud cases attaches to the conduct while in office; the resignation only limits exposure for what happened afterwards.
Why are economic offences treated differently at the bail stage?
Following P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and allied authority, courts treat economic offences as a class apart — deliberate, designed for gain, and corrosive of public confidence in financial systems. That characterisation justifies a stricter approach to anticipatory bail, where custodial interrogation is often central to tracing funds.
What offences were alleged?
The FIR — No. 143/2025, investigated by the EOW — invoked Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC: criminal breach of trust (including by an agent), cheating and criminal conspiracy, arising from collection of investor funds through a portfolio scheme without registration.
What remains open to the accused after dismissal?
Everything except pre-arrest immunity. The accused may cooperate with the investigation, seek regular bail if arrested — where the tests differ — and contest the allegations at charge and trial. Observations in an anticipatory bail order do not bind the trial court.