The Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to a former director accused of running unregistered portfolio management for investors, holding that his resignation and documentary evidence did not rule out custodial interrogation.

The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a former director of a company accused of collecting money from investors under portfolio management agreements without registration from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), holding that economic offences of this kind are a class apart [Md. Saif Rabbani v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026-juristway.com-3406-HC(Delhi)-SEBI].

Justice Mini Pushkarna decided the application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The FIR, registered by the Economic Offences Wing on 25 Oct 2025 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, followed a complaint by a SEBI officer. SEBI’s examination found that about ₹12.96 crore was credited to the company between October 2021 and December 2024 while its investment activity was minuscule. Eighteen victims alleged losses of about ₹2 crore.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, an equal shareholder, executed agreements knowing the company was unregistered, handled clients’ demat accounts and gave a security cheque of ₹5,00,000. He argued that he had resigned on 6 Mar 2023, was not a signatory to the bank accounts, had disputed the director’s conduct, and had been granted regular bail in a similar case in Faridabad.

Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), the Court said anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly in economic offences. It found that the allegations prima facie disclosed an organised scheme, not an isolated transaction, with more victims likely to come forward.

The resignation did not negate his alleged role before it, and his part in executing agreements and handling demat accounts needed further investigation. Bail in the Faridabad case did not help, as this FIR involved several complainants. The Court added that documentary evidence does not by itself remove the need for custodial interrogation.

The application was dismissed, with the clarification that the observations will not influence the trial.

2026-juristway.com-3406-HC(Delhi)-SEBI