Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS

"If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 06, 2026, held that an accused who was not arrested during the investigation should generally be granted bail after the filing of the charge-sheet and the taking of cognizance.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while exercising powers under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observed that the practice of effecting arrest after the court takes cognizance "makes no sense" if the investigating agency did not find custodial interrogation necessary during the actual probe.

The case originated from an FIR registered by the CBI in December 2024 against an organized cyber-fraud syndicate that allegedly employed the "digital arrest" modus operandi to extort money. The applicant, Raju Kumar Manjhi, was arraigned in the charge-sheet as a key member of the syndicate after investigation linked a mobile number registered in his name to fraudulent transactions. Despite the investigation being ongoing for over a year, the CBI never arrested the applicant until after the charge-sheet was filed and he appeared before the Magistrate pursuant to summons.

The primary question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the BNSS when he had not been arrested during the investigation and the case primarily rested on documentary evidence. The court was also called upon to determine the relevance of "further investigation" as a ground for denying bail post-cognizance under the new criminal procedural framework.

Investigating Agency Chose Not To Arrest During Probe

The Court observed that the records clearly indicated the CBI never considered it necessary to arrest the applicant during the entire course of the investigation. The applicant was only taken into custody after his bail application was rejected by the Magistrate post-filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance. The bench noted that the applicant was not even named in the FIR and was ascribed a limited role in the final report.

Court Explains Irrelevance Of Not Joining Investigation Earlier

Justice Banerjee clarified that the applicant's alleged failure to join the investigation in response to two notices was not a significant factor at this stage. The court remarked that it was open for the investigating agency to have taken coercive measures earlier if his presence was truly vital. Since the agency chose not to do so, the sudden necessity for custody after the probe's conclusion was viewed with skepticism.

Supreme Court Precedent On Post-Charge Sheet Arrests

The Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Musheer Alam vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., which criticized the "unusual practice" of arresting an accused only after a charge-sheet is filed. The High Court reiterated the apex court's view that once an investigation is over, the accused should be asked to appear and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court rather than being sent to judicial custody.

"If the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself."

Further Investigation Not A Sole Ground For Denying Bail

The CBI contended that bail should be denied as further investigation under Section 193(9) of the BNSS was ongoing regarding other victims and the applicant’s potential involvement. However, the Court held that considering the nature of the charge-sheet already filed, the pendency of further investigation cannot be the "sole ground" for denial of regular bail, especially when cognizance has already been taken on the existing materials.

Custody Not Required For Documentary Evidence

The bench emphasized that the prosecution's case substantially hinges on documentary and electronic evidence, including IP logs and bank records. Since these materials are already in the custody of the investigating agency, the court found there was hardly any scope for the applicant to tamper with the evidence. Furthermore, it was noted that other co-accused with more significant roles had already been granted bail.

"The purpose/ object of bail is to secure the presence of the applicant during trial."

The High Court allowed the application, directing the release of the applicant on regular bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety. The court imposed several conditions, including surrendering the passport and reporting to the Investigating Officer once every month. The ruling underscores that under the BNSS, judicial custody should not be used as a tool for formal arrest once the primary investigation is complete and the accused has cooperated with court summons.

Date of Decision: July 06, 2026