[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Aviation Services Llc vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 24th November, 2025
Pronounced on: 18th February, 2026
+ CRL.MC. 5442/2025
AVIATION SERVICES LLC
Regd. Office at TVARDOVSKOGO UL,
12-2IV/13, 123458, MOSCOW, RF 123458
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar
R/o N-212, 2nd Floor,
Greater Kailash-1,
New Delhi -110048
Email: [email protected] .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.K Singh, Mr. Narendra Kumar
and Ms. Shattika Haldar, Advocates
versus
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Economic Offences Wing,
Mandir Marg,
New Delhi-110001
Email: [email protected]
2. MR. VISHAL OBEROI
S/o Mr. Vinod Oberoi,
R/o 9/19, Ground Floor,
East Partel Nagar,
Central Delhi - 110008
Email: [email protected] .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Sanjeet Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL.MC. 5442/2025 Page 1 of 13
ARORA
Signing Date:20.02.2026
16:59:29
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition under Section 483(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") read with Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS") on
behalf of the Petitioner/Aviation Services LLC seeking cancellation of
Bail of Respondent No.2, Vishal Oberoi granted vide Order dated
23.07.2025 passed by Ld. ASJ-05, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
in FIR No. 41/2024 under Sections 420/406/468/471/120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), at P.S. EOW.
2. It is submitted that the Petitioner/Complainant was cheated of Rs.
6,05,99675.58/- on the basis of false representation/forged documents etc.
and was induced to bank transfer this amount in the accounts of M/s
Mangalam Traders, Proprietor Ankit Srivastav, to export aviation goods and
automobile parts to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner thereafter, lodged a detailed Complaint dated
20.12.2023, which culminated into registration of FIR No. 41/2024, under
Section 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, at P.S. EOW, New Delhi. The
names of all the accused, illegal beneficiaries were disclosed in the FIR.
However, in the last 2 years, neither any accused/ illegal beneficiaries were
arrested, nor any amount has been attached/seized.
4. The following Chart describes the trail of misappropriated money as
apparent from the ATRs filed by the I.O.:
5. Sumit Ahluwalia @ Sunny Walia is still holding and enjoying the
misappropriated money, for more than two years while on court Bail.
6. During investigation, it was clearly established that the accused
persons, in active connivance and conspiracy, opened Bank Accounts in the
names of employees namely, Ankit Srivastava and Rajveer Singh, to receive
cheated amounts of Rs.6,05,99,675.58/- and diverted the same, to illegal
beneficiaries for unlawful enrichment.
7. The I.O. reported that despite Notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the
accused did not join investigation; instead they filed Anticipatory Bail
Applications.
8. It is submitted that the Ld. Sessions Court granted Bail to Sumit
Ahluwalia @ Sunny Walia by observing that he had not directly dealt with
or induced the Complainant and was not the first layer beneficiary. Despite
the accused holding misappropriated funds, bail was granted.
9. Interim Bail was also granted to Ankit Srivastav to join
investigations, vide Order dated 29.03.2025. However, Bail of Ankit
Srivastav was rejected on 04.07.2025, considering the huge cheating amount
of Rs. 6.05 Crores received in his account.
10. Accused, Ankit Jhamb also filed Anticipatory Bail and was granted
interim bail to join investigation. Though Ankit Jhamb joined investigation,
he failed to produce any documents/material justifying receipt of Rs. 3.15
Crores. He was nevertheless granted Bail on grounds of parity and
joining investigation.
11. Respondent, Vishal Oberoi, Accused filed Anticipatory Bail No.
1178/2025. The I.O. opposed the Bail stating he received Rs. 2.89 Crores
from M/s Mangalam Traders of which Ankit Srivastav was the Proprietor, in
the account of M/s AV Global, Proprietorship concern of Respondent,
Vishal Oberoi and had not joined investigation despite notice. The I.O.
further submitted that he may abscond, tamper evidence, threaten witnesses,
and that cheated money, is yet to be recovered.
12. During arguments, Vishal Oberoi admitted receiving Rs. 2.89 Crores,
but claimed to have paid Rs. 48 Lakhs and Rs. 1.80 Crores in cash to Sumit
Ahluwalia @ Sunny Walia without any supporting documents or proof of
payments.
13. Despite incriminating material, the Ld. Sessions Judge granted
Anticipatory Bail to Vishal Oberoi on 23.07.2025 merely on parity with
co-accused.
14. It is submitted that the impugned Order ignored material facts and
I.O.'s submissions and is ex-facie contrary to record. The Ld. Court has
permitted accused persons to enjoy the fruits of admitted misappropriated
money, causing grave injustice to the Complainant.
15. On 28.04.2025, it was submitted before the Ld. ASJ that Ankit
Srivastav was receiving threats from Ankit Jhamb and Sumit Walia. There is
apprehension that Vishal Oberoi may similarly influence/tamper with
witnesses.
16. The Petitioner requested the I.O. to seek cancellation of Bail, but no
action was taken. More than two years have passed; no recovery has been
made and no accused has been arrested/detained for effective investigation.
17. Reliance is placed on Puran vs. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 held that
bail granted by ignoring material evidence in serious offences, is perverse
and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
18. Hence, a prayer is made that the present Petition be allowed and the
Order granting Bail granted to Respondent, Vishal Oberoi be set aside.
19. A Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein the
facts of the case have been elaborated.
20. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on
the complaint of Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Authorized Representative of
M/s Aviation Service LLC (a Russian Company). It was alleged that in
2022, Ms. Olga Basha, senior official VTB Bank introduced one, Mr. Rohit
Jain to the Complainant. On 28.11.2022, Mr. Igor Malyshknov, Senior
representative of the Complainant Company had a meeting with Rohit Jain
regarding providing services to various foreign Companies, to do business
with India.
21. Upon discussion, Rohit Jain advised to facilitate the supply of car
spare parts and aviation goods, through M/s Mangalam Traders, a
proprietorship of Ankit Srivastav. A Delivery Agreement dated 30.01.2023
was executed. The Complainant further stated that Mr. Rohit Jain shared the
Proforma Invoice of purported supplier's M/s Impex International FZE and
Aerojet Baltic, UAB, as stated to be obtained by Mangalam Traders for rates
of the goods as required by the Complainant Company. On the basis of
Proforma Invoices forwarded by Rohit Jain, believing it to be genuine, the
Complainant paid Rs.6,05,99,675.58/. However, no goods were delivered.
22. Subsequently, FIR No. 41/2024 under Sections
420/406/468/471/120B IPC at P.S. EOW, was registered.
23. Investigation revealed that although the Complainant's account was
not maintained with JSC VTB Bank, intermediary transactions totalling Rs.
6,05,99,625.28 were routed through VTB Bank (PJSC), Russia, between
20.02.2023 and 17.03.2023.
Date Amount
20.02.2023 3366633.28
06.03.2023 1821493.00
06.03.2023 41174640.00
15.03.2023 11015600.30
17.03.2023 3221309.50
Total 6,05,99,625.28
24. Notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C were issued to concerned persons
and Banks, namely, Ms. Olga Basha (the then head of JSC VTB Bank),
Branch Manager ICICI Bank. The analysis of the account in ICICI Bank,
A/c No. 036705501542 of M/s Mangalam Traders revealed that the account
said Current Bank A/c has been opened as proprietorship Firm, M/s
Mangalam Traders, Proprietor namely, Ankit Srivastav. The said Account
was opened on 24.11.2021 and closed on 13.10.2023. As per the scrutiny of
the Statements of the aforesaid Bank Account, the information regarding
further transfer of funds into the accounts of beneficiaries, has been
identified.
25. The analysis further revelated that the cheated amount exceeding Rs.
6 crore, was credited into this Account and subsequently transferred to five
entities, including M/s AJ Steel (Account Holder: Ankit Jhamb), M/s RJ
Enterprises (Account Holder: Rajbir Singh), M/s BRISK Traders (Account
Holder: Himanshu), M/s AV Global Trading (Account Holder:
Respondent, Vishal Oberoi), and M/s Invergise Global Pvt. Ltd
(Account Holder: Deepak Kumar, Vinod Maherkar).
26. The analysis of beneficiary accounts revealed further diversion of
funds. The bank Accounts were debit frozen and further beneficiary details
are under verification.
27. Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to Rohit Jain to join
the investigation, to which he responded that he was introduced to Mr. Igor
Malyshov by Ms. Olga Basha and as a lawyer, he could benefit by their
contractual agreements and rending legal opinion.
28. Mobile number 7303340418, linked to Mangalam Traders' account
since inception, was registered in the name of one Jatin (since deceased).
CDR analysis showed it was used only for receiving bank SMS alerts and
was primarily operational near the residence of Ankit Jhamb.
29. Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to Ankit Srivastav
and stated that the opening the account of M/s Mangalam Traders at the
instance of Respondent, Ankit Jhamb and his brother Ankur Jhamb, and
stated that they operated the account. He acknowledged signing cheques and
being aware of the linked mobile number.
30. Further investigation revealed that M/s AJ Steel received Rs. 53.34
lakhs from 20.02.2023 to 06.03.2023 from M/s Mangalam Traders. A sum
of Rs. 50 lakh was transferred to M/s AV Global on 13.03.2023. M/s AJ
Steel received Rs. 2.21 crores from M/s RJ Enterprises from 06.03.2023 and
14.03.2023. M/s RJ Enterprises received Rs. 2.38 crores from M/s
Mangalam Traders from 06.03.2023 and 18.03.2023.
31. The Status Report further elaborates on the interrogation of the other
accused persons, namely, Sachin Jindal (Proprietor: M/s Citizen
Enterprises); Manish, Accountant of Ankit Jhamb; Sumit Walia; Rajbir
(Proprietor: M/s RJ Enterprises).
32. The Status Report further elaborated on the Interrogation of the
Respondent, Vishal Oberoi. It was stated that during investigation, it was
found that the Axis Account Bank number was registered in the name of the
Respondent's Firm, opened on 01.08.2018. An amount of Rs. 2.89 crores
was transferred from the account of M/s Mangalam Traders, Proprietor:
Ankit Srivastav, in account of M/s AV Global of which the Proprietor was
Vishal Oberoi.
33. Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was served to the Respondent, to
which he replied and stated that he had met Sumit Walia through a mutual
acquaintance and he was involved in buying cars from him. Sumit Walia
through his associate Firms, namely M/s AJ Steel and M/s Mangalam,
arranged the payments in the account of M/s AV Global. The Respondent,
Vishal Oberoi has stated that amount of Rs.48 lakhs and Rs.1.8 crore were
returned to Sumit Walia in cash out of the received money, which was
denied by Sumit Walia.
34. The Anticipatory Bail Application of the Applicant was allowed vide
Order dated 23.07.2025 for two months.
35. Notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C was given to the Respondent, Vishal
Oberoi and he joined investigation on multiple occasions. Further
investigation is in progress.
Submissions heard and record perused.
36. Essentially facts of the case are that an amount of approximately Rs.
6.05 crores was allegedly transferred by the Complainant Company to the
account of M/s Mangalam Traders, on the basis of representations regarding
supply of aviation and automobile parts, which were never delivered.
Investigation indicates that the said amount was subsequently routed through
various entities, including M/s AV Global, the proprietor of which is
Respondent, which received Rs. 2.89 crores. The allegations, therefore,
primarily rest upon the financial trail and the extent of the Respondent's
knowledge and participation in the alleged conspiracy.
37. The core issue that falls for determination is whether the Order dated
23.07.2025 granting Anticipatory Bail to the Respondent, Vishal Oberoi
warrants interference by this Court?
38. Before considering the contentions on merit, it is significant to
observe that there is a distinction between recall and cancellation of Bail.
While recall can be made only if it is established that Bail has been granted
by not considering the relevant facts on merits, cancellation is prompted by
subsequent events and violation of terms of Bail by the Respondent.
39. The Apex Court in Y vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269
underscored that an order granting bail can be tested on illegality, perversity,
arbitrariness and being based on unjustified material.
40. In recent judgement of Ashok Dhankad vs. State of NCT of Delhi and
Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, Apex Court reiterated that while
considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a
serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the
nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which
the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the
role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the
probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the
proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail.
41. The Apex Court has further succinctly explained and summarized the
factors for consideration for setting aside of Bail Orders as under:
"19. The principles which emerge as a result of the
above discussion are as follows:
(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be
considered to be on the same footing as an application for
cancellation of bail;
(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a thread
bare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The
merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage
of bail;
(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of
mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail
that have been elucidated by this Court.
(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained
by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality;
inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into
consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of
the crime;
(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an
accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while
considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such
grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of
bail; and
(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed
to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be
confined only to the grounds discussed above."
42. In the light of aforesaid principles, the contentions raised in the
present Petition be now considered.
43. The present Petition essentially does not disclose any supervening
circumstance warranting cancellation. From the impugned Order dated
23.07.2025, it is evident that the Ld. ASJ took note of the fact that co-
accused persons placed in a comparable position, had already been granted
Anticipatory Bail. It was further noted that the role attributable to the
Respondent is lesser, as compared to that of other accused persons. The
Respondent's involvement does not appear to involve direct inducement or
forgery vis-à-vis the Complainant, and there is no prima facie evidence of
his active inducement to complainant at this stage.
44. The primary emphasis of the Petitioner is on the seriousness of the
alleged offence and the substantial monetary amount involved. While such
considerations are relevant at the stage of initial grant of Bail, they do not,
by themselves, furnish a valid ground for recall once Bail has been granted
upon careful judicial scrutiny.
45. The Petition, in essence, seeks a re-appreciation of the merits of the
case, which is impermissible in proceedings for cancellation of Bail. Such
re-appreciation of facts and merits is beyond the limited scope of
proceedings for cancellation of Bail, unless the Order of grant of Bail is
shown to be manifestly unjust, perverse, or based on extraneous
considerations.
46. As held in the case of Ashok Dhankad, (supra), an appeal against
grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as
perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken
into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime.
As already discussed, there is nothing to reflect any perversity in the Order
of Ld. ASJ, granting Bail.
47. The Ld. ASJ, thus took note of all the relevant factors to conclude that
the Respondent was entitled to Bail. An appeal against grant of bail must not
be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. It cannot, therefore, be
characterized as mechanical or passed in disregard of material on record.
48. Though while considering the recall of bail order, the Court is not to
take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into
consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail
and such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail;
but significantly, there is no assertion by the Petitioner that after the grant of
Bail the Respondent, Vishal Oberoi has breached any of the conditions
imposed, avoided investigation, interfered with evidence, intimidated
witnesses, or shown any inclination to evade the process of law. Rather, the
material placed before this Court indicates that the Respondent has joined
the investigation as directed. In the absence of any supervening
circumstances or misuse of liberty, the stringent parameters governing recall
of Bail are not attracted.
Conclusion:
49. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in
the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed.
50. Pending Applications are also disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2026
N
