[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash vs State Nct Of Delhi on 10 April, 2026
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.04.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 462/2026
JAI PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with IO/SI Neeraj.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 385/2025 of
Police Station Kotwali for offence under Section 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) BNS.
2. After last date, status report was filed. I have heard learned counsel
for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Neeraj.
3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case as explained in the status
report is as follows. The complainant de facto was approached by the
accused/applicant representing himself to be connected with the business
entities namely M/s Swastik Trading Company and M/s Swastik Fashion.
BAIL APPLN. 462/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af396
2c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40
f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.10 05:07:46 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.04.2026
17:23:50
On being induced by the accused/applicant and his associates, the
complainant de facto supplied to those business entities goods on credit. The
cheque towards cost of those goods got dishonoured, but thereafter despite
repeated requests, the accused persons did not pay the due amount, so the
complainant de facto initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the purely civil
dispute has been given colour of criminality and that no offence of cheating
is made out. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant is neither
proprietor nor partner of the business entities, who allegedly received goods
from the complainant de facto. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant
had made part payment of approximately Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant
de facto so it cannot be a case of cheating but he remains in custody since
18.07.2025.
5. Learned APP submits that the accused/applicant induced the
complainant de facto so the latter supplied goods on credit and this
according to prosecution is cheating.
6. Given the above mentioned factual matrix, I find substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the accused/applicant that what was at
the most a civil liability, has been given colour of criminality only to
armtwist the accused/applicant for recovery of money. In any case, as
mentioned above, even proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable
BAIL APPLN. 462/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.04.10 05:07:35 -07'00'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:10.04.2026
17:23:50
Instruments Act are pending. There is nothing on record to show that the
accused/applicant is either proprietor or partner of the said two business
entities, who allegedly received the goods.
7. Of course, the above observations are for the limited purpose of
analysis of the arguments of the prosecution side. The learned trial court
shall take independent view at final stage after the evidence is adduced.
8. For the time being, I find no reason to further deprive liberty to the
accused/applicant.
9. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is
directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court.
10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.10 05:07:21 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 10, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 462/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages
