Suman Lata Sharma vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 1 April, 2026

Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma

Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma

                          $~91 & 92
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                           Date of Decision: 01.04.2026
                          +      BAIL APPLN. 1257/2026,               CRL.M.A.     9888/2026       &
                                 CRL.M.A. 9889/2026
                                 SUMAN LATA SHARMA                                    .....Petitioner
                                                        Through:     Mr. V.K. Mishra, Mr. Vinit
                                                                     Kumar Dubey & Irshad A.
                                                                     Siddiqui, Advocates

                                                        versus

                                 STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                      .....Respondent
                                                        Through:     Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
                                                                     State.

                          (92)
                          +    BAIL APPLN. 1261/2026,                 CRL.M.A.     9896/2026       &
                               CRL.M.A. 9897/2026
                                 LOKESH SHARMA                                        .....Petitioner
                                                        Through:     Mr. V.K. Mishra, Mr. Vinit
                                                                     Kumar Dubey & Irshad A.
                                                                     Siddiqui, Advocates

                                                        versus

                                 STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)                      .....Respondent
                                                        Through:     Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
                                                                     State.
                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
                                                           JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present applications, the applicants are seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 39/2025, registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Outer North, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 308/318(4)/319/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter 'BNS').

2. Issue notice. The learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of one Nitin, aged about 18 years, resident of Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, alleging that he had come into contact with an Instagram user with the ID "neha-official-007", who was posing as a female. It is alleged that after several days of conversation, the complainant was induced to participate in online gaming through a website named "Sugo", where he was promised monetary gains. The complainant was instructed to deposit money in order to play the games and received payment instructions through WhatsApp from two mobile numbers, i.e. 7983300590 (saved as "SB") and 8881976052 (saved as "Virat Bhai"). Multiple QR codes and bank account details were allegedly shared with him for making the payments. It is further alleged that the complainant transferred money through the said QR codes and bank accounts. Although the complainant was shown to have won certain amounts while playing the games, he was unable to withdraw

the money from the website. Upon raising queries, the alleged fraudsters reportedly demanded further deposits to enable withdrawal. The complainant thereafter sought the help of a neighbourhood shopkeeper to transfer additional money, and in this manner a total amount of ₹1,92,600/- is stated to have been cheated from him.

4. During investigation, scrutiny of bank account No. 9550466151 maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank (Layer-1) revealed that an amount of ₹54,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 09.12.2025, which was subsequently transferred on the same day to bank account no. 5449030731 (Layer-2). On obtaining the KYC and account opening documents, it was revealed that the bank account no. 5449030731 is registered in the name of Manu Dream Hub Private Limited, having its office at Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana, and the proprietors of the said company are Lokesh Sharma and Suman Lata Sharma, i.e. the applicants herein.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the alleged amount of ₹1,92,600/- was not directly transferred to the bank account of the applicants; rather, the amount was routed through different bank accounts and only about ₹53,500/- is alleged to have been received in the bank account of the applicants‟ company. It is further submitted that neither the contact number nor the bank account details of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR as being involved in the alleged offence. It is stated the complainant was

allegedly induced to transfer money by one „Virat‟ and another unknown person through WhatsApp, and the applicants had no role in the commission of the alleged offence. It is also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the applicants and the complainant, and the applicants are willing to return the amount of ₹1,92,600/- which, according to them, came into their bank account due to a technical glitch. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.

6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State opposes the present applications and submits that during investigation, it was revealed that an amount of about ₹54,000/- transferred by the complainant had ultimately reached the bank account of Manu Dream Hub Private Limited, of which the applicants are proprietors. It is further submitted that on checking the said bank account on the Samanvya Portal, multiple complaints were found registered against it, and other bank accounts linked with the same PAN number were also found to be involved in several cyber fraud complaints. The learned APP further submits that despite service of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the applicants failed to join the investigation. It is argued that recovery of the cheated amount is yet to be effected and custodial interrogation of the applicants is required for effective investigation. It is also contended that settlement with one complainant is of no consequence since several other complaints have surfaced against the bank account belonging to the present applicants, indicating that there appears to be an organised racket of

cybercrime being run by the applicants and other co-accused persons. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present applications for anticipatory bail be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicants as well as the State, and has perused the material on record.

8. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that the complainant had come into contact with an Instagram user having the ID "neha- official-007", who was posing as a female, and was induced to participate in online gaming through a website named "Sugo" on the promise of earning money. It is alleged that on the instructions received through WhatsApp from two different persons, the complainant had transferred money through QR codes and bank accounts, but despite being shown to have won in the games, he was unable to withdraw the amount and was repeatedly asked to deposit more money, resulting in a total loss of ₹1,92,600/-.

9. This Court takes note of the fact that during investigation, scrutiny of bank account no. 9550466151 maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank revealed that an amount of ₹54,000/- deposited by the complainant on 09.12.2025 was transferred on the same day to another bank account no. 5449030731, which - upon obtaining the KYC and bank account opening documents - was found opened in the name of Manu Dream Hub Private Limited, having its office at Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana, of which the applicants herein, i.e.

Lokesh Sharma and Suman Lata Sharma, are the proprietors.

10. It has further been revealed during investigation that upon checking the said bank account on the Samanvya Portal, as many as 13 complaints were found registered against it. Further, with the help of PAN No. AAOCM7358L of the said company, two other bank accounts, bearing numbers 250679679679 and 673805600712, were traced. On checking these accounts on the Samanvya Portal, 18 complaints were found registered against bank account no. 250679679679 and 2 complaints against bank account no. 673805600712, relating to similar allegations of cyber fraud.

11. It is material to note that the applicants before this Court have neither disputed the receipt of money in the bank account of their company nor the fact that 13, 18 and 2 complaints respectively have been lodged against the three bank accounts of their company on the Samanvya Portal in relation to allegations of cyber fraud.

12. In these circumstances, the contention of the applicants that the matter has been settled with the present complainant and that they are willing to return the amount of ₹1,92,600/- does not merit acceptance. Settlement with one complainant cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail when multiple complaints involving similar allegations have surfaced against the bank accounts linked with the applicants‟ company.

13. Further, the argument of the applicants that the money came into their bank accounts due to some "technical glitch" is also

without any basis, unsubstantiated and difficult to believe at this stage, particularly in view of the number of complaints found registered against the bank accounts linked with their company.

14. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material revealed during investigation and the involvement of multiple bank accounts linked with the applicants‟ company in several cyber fraud complaints, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

15. The present bail applications, along with pending applications, are, accordingly, dismissed.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 01, 2026/zp TD