In Amit v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 3871/2025, decided with the connected applications of co-accused on 27 October 2026, the Delhi High Court dealt with a question that recurs in serious offences: can an accused who evaded non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings, and then joined the investigation under the umbrella of interim protection, convert that sequence into a case for anticipatory bail? Justice Sachin Datta answered no — the applications were dismissed, the interim protection was vacated on the complainant's applications, and the accused were directed to surrender within one week.
The allegations
The deceased and his brothers had worked in hotels run by two of the applicants before setting up their own hotel business — a rivalry the prosecution says matured into threats, and then into murder. On the night of 26–27 March 2025 the deceased was allegedly taken into a hotel controlled by the accused; his body was later found burnt in a sugarcane field in Shamli, and the car used was also burnt. FIR No. 190/2025 was registered at PS Tilak Nagar on 30 March 2025 under provisions corresponding to murder, kidnapping in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence and conspiracy — Sections 103(1), 140, 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 3(5), along with Arms Act offences. Section 209 BNS, the successor to Section 174A IPC, was added against accused who failed to appear.
The conduct that decided the applications
What proved decisive was not the merits of the accusation but the applicants' own conduct. Two of them became untraceable from the date of the FIR; non-bailable warrants were issued and proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS — the successor to Section 82 CrPC — commenced. The third was actually declared a proclaimed offender in February 2026. Each later obtained interim protection and joined the investigation, and it was from behind that shield that the anticipatory bail applications were pressed. The complainant, the deceased's brother, applied for vacation of the interim protection.
The reasoning
Justice Sachin Datta anchored the decision in two settled propositions. First, anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege, to be granted in exceptional cases — the formulation in Jai Prakash Singh. Second, from Srikant Upadhyay: when a warrant of arrest or proclamation has issued, the applicant is ordinarily not entitled to invoke that extraordinary power at all. Against that framework, the applicants' central argument — that the investigation was substantially complete and custodial interrogation unnecessary — could not carry the day. The Court held that completion of investigation does not by itself justify pre-arrest bail, and that in any event the investigation here was not complete: the weapon and the hotel's DVR remained unrecovered, and a draft supplementary chargesheet cannot be equated with the report forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 193(3) BNSS.
The sharpest line in the order is directed at absconders who later regularise their position: joining the investigation does not efface the earlier evasion, and a court cannot allow an accused to convert that evasion into a ground for pre-arrest bail. The order also weighed the risk of influence — the key witnesses were the applicants' own hotel employees.
What the order means in practice
Three practical consequences follow for anticipatory bail work in Delhi. First, the issuance of non-bailable warrants or the commencement of proclamation proceedings is close to a threshold bar: an applicant who has run from process must explain that conduct, and belated cooperation rarely explains it. Second, interim protection is provisional in the fullest sense — it can be vacated on the complainant's application, and a victim's family has standing to be heard on that question. Third, the dismissal of anticipatory bail is not the end of the road: the Court expressly preserved the right to seek regular bail after surrender, to be decided on its own merits. The route back into the contest runs through the trial court, not around it.
For complainants, the order is equally instructive: where accused persons obtain interim protection after a period of absconding, an application to vacate that protection, supported by the record of warrants and proclamation, is a remedy the Delhi High Court will take seriously.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the case about?
FIR No. 190/2025 of PS Tilak Nagar concerns the murder of a young hotel worker whose body was found burnt in a field in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, in March 2025. The prosecution alleges that the accused, who ran hotels where the deceased had earlier worked, took him into one of their hotels on the night of 26–27 March 2025, after which he was killed and the body and the vehicle used were burnt. The offences invoked include Sections 103(1), 140, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS along with provisions of the Arms Act.
Why did the Court refuse anticipatory bail even though the accused had joined the investigation?
Because the accused became untraceable immediately after the FIR, non-bailable warrants were issued and proclamation proceedings under Section 84 BNSS had begun before they surfaced with interim protection. Relying on Srikant Upadhyay, the Court held that once warrants and proclamation issue, the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail is ordinarily not available, and that joining the investigation later does not efface the earlier evasion.
Does completion of investigation entitle an accused to anticipatory bail?
No. The Court reiterated that the filing of a chargesheet, or the absence of any need for custodial interrogation, does not by itself justify pre-arrest bail. Here it also noted that the investigation was incomplete in a real sense — the murder weapon and the hotel DVR were unrecovered and a supplementary chargesheet was still in draft, which cannot be equated with a report actually forwarded under Section 193(3) BNSS.
What happens to the accused now?
The interim protection granted earlier was vacated and the accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within one week, failing which the investigating officer and the trial court may proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified that after surrender they may apply for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merits, its observations being prima facie only.