In an application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) filed for commission of offences under Sections 305(B)/316/318(4)/336/338/339/340/3(5)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant considering the gravity of the alleged offences and the need for custodial interrogation.
The applicant, a clerk in the Road Transport Authority, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, was accused of being part of a syndicate involving vehicle lifters who tampered with the chassis numbers of stolen vehicles and had them registered using fake documents. It was mentioned that the registration numbers used were mostly from states far away from the State where the vehicle was registered.
It was asserted that the applicant had the SDM’s email password, which enabled him to access the OTPs received from the Vaahan website. It was also mentioned that most of the vehicles fraudulently registered in Bilaspur had registration numbers issued by the Telangana authorities. The applicant claimed that he had never processed registration files without receiving a ‘no objection’ from the Telangana authorities, but, on the contrary, the IO produced records reflecting that he had processed a number of files even beyond office hours.
The Court took note of a status report stating that, even after his transfer from Bilaspur, the applicant had obtained OTPs from his successor clerk to register tainted vehicles himself on several occasions. The Court was also informed of the applicant’s suspension by an order dated 03-02-2026.
Further, as per the investigation conducted to date, the Court stated that some of the vehicles registered by the applicant were examined, and their registration numbers were found to have been tampered with. The Court also noted that the scope of the investigation in the present matter included a number of States, not only Telangana.
Considering the expanse of the alleged offence, the Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant as doing so would deprive the IO of an opportunity to carry out custodial interrogation. Thus, the application was dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Madhav Khurana (Sr. Adv), Mr. Parantap Singh, Mr. Laxman Rana, Mr. Deepargya Datta, Mr. Lakshay Sehrawat
For Respondents – Mr. Amit Ahlawat (APP)
