Introduction:
The Delhi High Court, in Aneel Kapoor v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (CRL.M.C. 4929/2026), granted interim protection to a man accused in a ₹24.76 lakh visa fraud case by directing that no coercive action be taken against him until the next date of hearing. Justice Manoj Jain passed the interim order while issuing notice to the State on a petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s anticipatory bail by the Tis Hazari Sessions Court.
The case arises out of an FIR registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, who operated businesses relating to visa facilitation and immigration services, induced her to pay nearly ₹24.76 lakh over several years on the assurance that he would secure study and work visas for her daughter to travel to the United Kingdom. According to the complaint, despite receiving substantial amounts of money, the promised immigration services were never provided, resulting in allegations of cheating and breach of trust.
Initially, the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on May 21, subject to the condition that he would cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer whenever required. Subsequently, the prosecution sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail, alleging that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the court. It was alleged that despite being served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), he did not join the investigation and relied upon forged medical documents to justify his absence. Accepting these submissions, the Sessions Court cancelled the anticipatory bail, observing that custodial interrogation had become necessary, particularly regarding the alleged fabrication of medical records.
Aggrieved by the cancellation order, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the Sessions Court had failed to properly appreciate the facts and had unjustifiably withdrawn the protection earlier granted. The High Court was therefore called upon to examine whether interim protection should continue until the legality of the cancellation order is adjudicated.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the Sessions Court erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail without properly considering the circumstances explaining his absence from the investigation. It was submitted that the medical documents produced before the investigating agency were genuine and had been furnished only to explain his inability to appear on the specified dates. According to the petitioner, there was no deliberate attempt to evade the investigation or violate the conditions of anticipatory bail.
The petitioner further contended that the cancellation order was passed without a proper appreciation of the material placed before the court. It was argued that anticipatory bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically unless there is clear evidence of misuse of liberty, obstruction of investigation or violation of bail conditions. Since the allegations regarding forged medical records were themselves disputed, the petitioner maintained that the cancellation of bail was legally unsustainable.
On behalf of the State, the prosecution defended the Sessions Court’s order. It was submitted that despite the specific condition requiring the petitioner to join the investigation, he failed to cooperate with the investigating officer even after being served with notice under Section 35(3) BNS. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner attempted to justify his non-appearance by relying upon fabricated medical documents, thereby frustrating the investigation.
The State argued that such conduct amounted to a clear breach of the conditions attached to anticipatory bail. It further submitted before the Sessions Court that custodial interrogation had become necessary not only for investigating the allegations of cheating but also to examine the alleged fabrication and use of false medical records. Before the High Court, the Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and sought time to file a detailed reply defending the cancellation order.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Manoj Jain issued notice on the petition and granted the State time to file its response. Recognising that the challenge to the cancellation of anticipatory bail required detailed consideration, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.
The High Court did not examine the merits of the rival allegations at the interim stage. Instead, it considered it appropriate to preserve the existing position until both parties were heard in detail. Accordingly, while granting interim protection, the Court ensured that the petitioner would not face arrest or any other coercive measures pending adjudication of his challenge to the Sessions Court’s order.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 18, when the State is expected to place its response on record. The High Court will thereafter consider whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail was legally justified, whether the petitioner violated the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court, and whether custodial interrogation is genuinely required in the facts of the case.
The interim order does not amount to restoration of anticipatory bail or a finding on the merits of the allegations. It merely protects the petitioner from coercive action while the Court examines the legality of the cancellation order. The final outcome will depend upon the High Court’s assessment of whether the petitioner complied with the conditions of anticipatory bail and whether the prosecution’s allegations regarding non-cooperation and forged medical documents justify cancellation of that protection.
The case highlights the distinction between the grant of anticipatory bail and its cancellation. While courts possess the power to revoke anticipatory bail where an accused misuses the concession or obstructs investigation, such cancellation must be supported by sufficient material. The proceedings before the Delhi High Court will therefore determine whether the Sessions Court correctly exercised its discretion in withdrawing the protection earlier granted to the petitioner.