Delhi High Court on Fifth Anticipatory Bail: Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled to Relief.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the fifth anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner in a large-scale RoSCTL export incentive fraud, holding that a person against whom proclamation under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) has been executed is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner’s conduct—marked by repeated defaults, non-compliance with earlier bail conditions, and misuse of judicial process—showed a lack of bona fides, warranting rejection of relief.

Background:

• The petitioner, Suresh Kumar Jain, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 166/2020 registered at P.S. Special Cell for offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66, 67C, 67D, 71, 74 of the Information Technology Act, 2002.

• The FIR was lodged by M/s Colourful Fashion Hub, which discovered in May 2020 that RoSCTL (Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies) scrips worth ₹1.54 crore were fraudulently transferred to unknown entities.

• The scrips were traced from M/s M.S. & Sons (proprietor: late Mahendra Kumar Jain, petitioner’s brother) to M/s Renuja Enterprises (proprietor: petitioner), and finally to M/s Kanak Exim on the same day.

• The petitioner claimed he was a bona fide purchaser, having paid ₹1.48 crore to M/s M.S. & Sons and earned only a nominal commission. He relied on the IO’s report dated 10.09.2020 describing him as a “victim.”

• However, the complainant alleged that the petitioner knowingly used fraudulently obtained scrips and demanded repayment of ₹86 lakh.

Procedural History:

• Earlier anticipatory bail petitions were dismissed for non-compliance with conditions and lack of cooperation.

• On 12.03.2024, the High Court had granted conditional anticipatory bail subject to deposit of ₹1 crore, which the petitioner failed to comply with.

• His challenge before the Supreme Court (SLP dated 18.07.2024) was dismissed.

• Non-bailable warrants were issued on 04.01.2023, followed by proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC (09.04.2025).

• The present (fifth) anticipatory bail plea was filed citing medical conditions and alleged cooperation.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court noted that the petitioner repeatedly defaulted in complying with previous orders and failed to deposit ₹1 crore despite multiple opportunities.

• His repeated withdrawal of bail applications and submission of questionable medical documents indicated lack of bona fides.

• The Court emphasized that a person declared as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC cannot seek anticipatory bail, as doing so would defeat the process of law.

• The plea that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser and a “victim” of fraud was held to be a matter of trial and not a ground for pre-arrest protection.

• Custodial interrogation was considered necessary in view of the petitioner’s evasive conduct and financial trail.

Decision:

The High Court dismissed the fifth anticipatory bail application, holding that:

1. The petitioner’s repeated defaults and concealment of facts disentitled him to discretionary relief.
2. Execution of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC barred the grant of anticipatory bail.
3. No case for pre-arrest protection was made out.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents.

• Sections 66, 67C, 67D, 71, 74, Information Technology Act, 2002 – Offences relating to computer data misuse and identity fraud.

• Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 84, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Proclamation for absconding persons.

• Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to personal liberty vis-à-vis fair procedure.

Case: Suresh Kumar Jain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025

Bail Application No.: 2758 of 2025