[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Prashant Jain vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 February, 2026
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3442/2025
PRASHANT JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Mr. Sandeep
Mishra, Mr. Mawlik Khurana, Mr.
Ayush Vardhan and Mr. Surbhit
Nandan, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Anil
Mr. Vipul Sharma and Ms. Deepika,
Advocates for complainant de facto
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 237/2024 of
PS Crime Branch for offence under Section 420 IPC.
2. As reflected from the record, by way of order dated 28.10.2025, the
co-ordinate bench of this Court granted interim bail to the accused/applicant
in order to facilitate amicable settlement with the complainant de facto. That
interim bail continued on date to date basis. Today this matter has come up
before me for the first time.
BAIL APPLN. 3442/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c
bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.02.16 17:35:34 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
17:57:51
3. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that in
the course of business, he purchased yarn from the complainant de facto, but
did not pay full consideration thereof.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through
record including the orders dated 28.10.2025 onwards of the predecessor
benches. It is contended that the accused/applicant has not misused the
interim bail in any manner whatsoever and now chargesheet stands filed, so
no purpose would be served by sending the accused/applicant back to jail. It
is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that a purely civil transaction
has been given colour of criminality and no offence at all has been made out.
5. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Anil opposes the bail
application on the ground that the accused/applicant cheated the complainant
de facto by purchasing yarn but not making complete payment. Learned
APP for State submits that the cheating involves more than Rs.3,00,00,000/-
and grant of bail in such case would not be appropriate.
6. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto who
submits that the accused/applicant initially made part payment at the time of
purchase of the yarn but thereafter, he did not pay the balance money.
Learned counsel for complainant de facto contends that the accused/
applicant after purchasing yarn from complainant de facto sold the same in
the market without bills, so that yarn has to be recovered and for that
purpose custodial interrogation is required.
BAIL APPLN. 3442/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb483
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2e
ee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.02.16 17:35:48 -08'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:16.02.2026
17:57:51
7. To begin with, what has to be probed is as to whether the facts alleged
and material collected during investigation make out the ingredients of the
offence alleged. The quantum of alleged loss does not make the loss an
unlawful loss. What is to be considered here is as to whether the necessary
ingredients of cheating are completed.
8. No evidence has been shown to even prima facie establish that the
accused/applicant had any dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction. Rather, as submitted by both sides, at the inception of the
business transaction, the accused/applicant did make part payments. If this
ingredient of dishonest intention is overlooked, then every failed business
transaction would attract penal consequences. That was never the intention
of the legislature. Of course, these observations are subject to final outcome
of the trial.
9. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for complainant de facto
pertaining to the recovery of yarn through custodial interrogation, it is trite
that criminal courts are not forum for recovery of money or goods in such
situations. Whether or not the accused/applicant sold the yarn without bills
also does not fall within the domain of the present criminal proceedings.
Chargesheet has already been filed and no purpose would be served by
sending the accused/applicant back to jail.
10. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is
BAIL APPLN. 3442/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80c
bd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.02.16 17:36:34 -08'00'
Signing Date:16.02.2026
17:57:51
allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on regular bail
subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4
835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd
2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.16 17:36:47 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 16, 2026/as
BAIL APPLN. 3442/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
