The Delhi High Court has refused anticipatory bail to East Delhi councillor Vijay Kumar in the suicide case of a sanitation worker from Kalyanpuri, citing the need to investigate alleged financial pressure, repeated contact between the accused and the deceased, and the possibility of interference with witnesses or evidence.
A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the investigation was at an initial stage and that granting protection from arrest would not be appropriate. The court also noted the difference in position and influence between the councillor and the sanitation worker while considering the state’s opposition to the bail plea.
According to the report placed before the court, the deceased’s mobile phone contained a complaint submitted through the Chief Minister’s public grievance portal and an audio recording. The state also told the court that the councillor had called the sanitation worker 17 times on the day of the incident. The court considered these circumstances, along with the seriousness of the allegations and the stated need for custodial questioning, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.
The case concerns the death of the sanitation worker, who allegedly died by suicide at his home on September 2. An FIR was registered at Kalyanpuri police station on September 14 under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The councillor had earlier been denied anticipatory bail by the trial court.
Counsel appearing for the deceased’s wife, Hinu Mahajan, told the High Court that the worker wanted to purchase a house and had taken a loan of Rs 15 lakh through the councillor. It was alleged that the councillor retained the entire amount. The worker was also allegedly not paid his salary for several months and was placed under pressure when he sought information about the loan and unpaid wages. The complaint further alleged that he was threatened with transfer.
The complaint also alleged that the councillor retained the worker’s bank passbook, ATM card, cheque book, property-related papers and identity documents. The worker was described as being under stress because of alleged continuing mental harassment and financial exploitation. These allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.
The councillor’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed 12 days after the death, raising questions about the credibility of the complaint. The state opposed the application, referring to the 17 calls made on the day of the incident and arguing that the seriousness of the allegations warranted custodial investigation.
The High Court’s order does not determine guilt. It records that the alleged financial pressure, the handling of the worker’s documents, the phone calls and the relationship of authority between the councillor and the sanitation worker require investigation. The immediate legal development is that Vijay Kumar will not receive anticipatory bail in the case at this stage.
