LegalCase – Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Anticipatory Bail Matter

  LegalCase –  The Delhi High Court has provided temporary protection from arrest to a businessman facing allegations linked to theft, unlawful entry at night, and causing injuries to a woman who was previously in a live-in relationship with him. The relief will remain in effect until the next hearing while the investigation continues.

Court Provides Temporary Protection

The case stems from a complaint lodged by the woman, following which an FIR was registered at the Roop Nagar Police Station in Delhi. The businessman, Raghav Kapoor, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Hearing the matter, Justice Tejas Karia directed that no coercive action be taken against Kapoor for the time being. However, the protection is subject to his full cooperation with investigators and compliance with all directions issued by the investigating officer.

Fresh Investigation Report Ordered

The court also instructed Delhi Police to submit a new status report before the next hearing, scheduled for July 1. The report must include detailed findings from the examination of call detail records related to the mobile phones connected to the case.

According to the court, the available material reflects differing accounts from both the complainant and the accused. Because of these conflicting versions, the judge considered it necessary to conduct a closer review of electronic evidence before making any further decision on the bail application.

Focus on Call Records and CCTV Footage

During the proceedings, Justice Karia observed that mobile phone records belonging to the applicant, his mother, the complainant, and the complainant’s mother require verification. The court further emphasized the importance of examining CCTV footage and comparing it with the sequence of events described by the applicant.

The judge stated that a comprehensive investigation into the available electronic evidence would assist the court in assessing the anticipatory bail request fairly. As part of the directions, Kapoor has been asked to participate in the investigation whenever called and provide all necessary information, including access to relevant mobile devices.

Defence Cites Previous Relationship

Representing Kapoor, Senior Advocate Amit Chaddha, assisted by advocates Latika Malhotra and Mridul Bakshi, argued that the allegations mentioned in the FIR do not accurately reflect the circumstances of the case.

The defence informed the court that Kapoor and the complainant had been involved in a consensual relationship for several years and had previously lived together in Dubai. It was further submitted that after returning to India, both individuals became associated in a business venture.

To support these submissions, the defence reportedly presented photographs intended to demonstrate the existence of the earlier relationship.

Dispute and Visit to Residence

According to Kapoor’s legal team, communication between the two sides had ceased following misunderstandings, with both parties blocking each other’s phone numbers.

The defence also claimed that on April 21, 2026, the complainant’s mother contacted Kapoor’s mother and requested that he visit their residence in an effort to settle ongoing disagreements amicably. Acting on that request, Kapoor allegedly went to the residence with the intention of resolving disputes, and it was during this visit that the incident in question is said to have occurred.

Prosecution Opposes Bail Request

The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing that the investigation remains at an early stage. The Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the status report and maintained that the circumstances of the case warranted further inquiry.

According to the prosecution, concerns remain regarding the safety and security of the complainant and her family. The report also stated that jewellery allegedly taken during the incident has not yet been recovered.

Based on these factors, the prosecution contended that custodial interrogation may be necessary as investigators continue to gather evidence and verify the claims made by both sides.