Absconding MCD engineer's anticipatory bail plea dismissed by Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to MCD Junior Engineer Navdeep Khatri in a CBI corruption case, citing his conduct of absconding, failing to join the probe, and being declared a proclaimed offender as reasons for the dismissal.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an MCD Junior Engineer accused in a CBI corruption case, holding that his conduct of remaining absconding, failing to join the investigation despite notice, and being declared a proclaimed offender did not warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by Navdeep Khatri in connection with a CBI FIR registered under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Details of the Corruption Case

According to the FIR, the complainant, a private contractor carrying out construction work on G.B. Road in Delhi, alleged that co-accused Lokesh demanded a bribe of Rs 2 lakh and threatened that if the amount was not paid, the applicant, who was serving as a Junior Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, would demolish the under-construction building.

Following verification of the complaint by the CBI, a trap was laid on May 5, 2026, during which co-accused Lokesh and Lovesh were allegedly caught red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs 2 lakh on behalf of the applicant.

Court's Rationale for Bail Denial

The High Court noted that although no recovery was made from the applicant or his residence, it was undisputed that the co-accused were allegedly apprehended while accepting the bribe on his behalf.

The Court further recorded that the CBI had informed the MCD about the registration of the FIR and directed the applicant to appear before the investigating agency. However, despite being notified, he failed to join the investigation. The MCD also informed the CBI that when officials attempted to serve the notice at his residence, the house was found locked and the notice had to be left inside the premises.

The Court observed that the applicant had remained absconding since the arrest of the co-accused on May 5. It also noted that two non-bailable warrants had been issued against him before the trial court declared him a proclaimed offender on July 1.

Legal Precedents on Anticipatory Bail

Justice Banerjee held that the applicant's conduct in evading the investigation after the arrest of the co-accused raised serious suspicion and did not make out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Referring to Supreme Court precedents in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that greater caution and stringency are required while considering anticipatory bail applications.

The Court also took note of the complainant's allegation that he had received threats and was being pressured by the applicant and his associates after the registration of the case. It held that these allegations were a relevant factor against granting pre-arrest protection.

Final Order and Clarification

Observing that the applicant was a public servant holding a position of significant importance and influence, the High Court concluded that no case for anticipatory bail was made out and dismissed the application.

It clarified that the observations made in the order were only for deciding the bail plea and would not affect the merits of the trial.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)