Manisha Yadav
On 7 July 2025, the Delhi High Court denied pre-arrest bail to Ashish Kumar, an accused in a serious assault case, because he has been evading investigation. Ashish Kumar was facing allegations of attacking his cousin in a violent altercation stemming from a property dispute. The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, who emphasized that anticipatory bail is an exceptional power, meant to be exercised with caution, and should not be granted routinely.
The Court highlighted Ashish Kumar’s need for custodial interrogation as pivotal in its decision. The case against him was registered under Section 109(1) and Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, a legal framework designed to address various offenses.
During the proceedings, the Court took into account the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the complainant.
Justice Dudeja remarked:
“The law aids only those who abide by the law. Admittedly, the applicant has not joined the investigation, and non-bailable warrants (NBWs) have since been issued against him. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, including the type of injuries sustained by the complainant and the necessity for the applicant’s custodial interrogation, I do not deem it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant.”
Senior Advocate Vivek Sood represent Ashish Kumar while the prosecution was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman. Adv. Vivek Sood argued that the First Information Report (FIR) is a complicated situation where a civil dispute was improperly framed as a criminal issue. Adv. Vivek Sood said that Ashish Kumar has been falsely implicated due to longstanding issues over the family property and that the FIR is a dispute, seeking to unfairly advantage the complainant’s family in taking possession of the ancestral property.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that a Civil Suit related to the property had previously been filed but was withdrawn by Ashish Kumar’s mother due to a technical defect. Adv. Vivek Sood asserted that the altercation was provoked by the complainant, who had begun unauthorized construction on the disputed property. Adv. Vivek Sood noted that both Kumar and his mother had sustained injuries during the conflict but that no counter FIR was filed against the complainant.
On the opposite side, the Additional Public Prosecutor presented a counterargument, asserting that the complainant had suffered significant injuries, emphasizing that Ashish Kumar was not cooperating with the investigation and was deliberately evading arrest.
The Court, in its deliberation, reinforced that the authority to grant anticipatory bail should be viewed as extraordinary and only applicable in exceptional circumstances. Although the injuries sustained by the complainant were determined to be of a simple nature, the court concluded that Ashish Kumar’s presence was essential for custodial interrogation.
“Considering the facts and circumstances, along with the complainant’s injuries and the applicant’s necessity for custodial interrogation, I do not find it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant” the Court determined.
Therefore, the Application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Case Name: Ashish Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1674/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Click here to access the Order.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com