[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rajendra Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 28 January, 2026
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28th January, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 353/2026
RAJENDRA KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhatia, Mr. Sunita and
Ms. Komal, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for
the State with Insp. Raj Kumar Pal.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 026/2025 under
Sections 308/318(4)/319/340 BNS, 2023 (corresponding
383/384/385/386/387/388/389/420/416/419/470/471 IPC) registered at P.S.
Special Cell on 04.07.2025.
2. The facts in brief are that complainant-Vijay Kumar Kathuria, who is in
his seventies, reported about online financial fraud amounting to Rs.
1,38,18,100/-. He revealed that some unknown persons, who were
impersonating as IPS Officers from Mumbai Police, had placed him under
'digital arrest', alleging that the complainant was involved in some
money-laundering case.
3. The foremost reason assigned for the grant of anticipatory bail is that
the alleged cheated amount has been transferred to an account belonging to
M/s Fox Care Technology Pvt. Ltd., in which one Mr. Sayed Solef Ulla is the
Director, who is already in custody. It was during such custody that Mr. Sayed
Solef Ulla had taken the name of the applicant, thereby compelling the
applicant filing the present application seeking protection in the form of
anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is ready to join
investigation immediately. He further submits that any such statement made
by co-accused has no evidentiary value and cannot be used against the
applicant.
5. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice and opposes the
present application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and gone
through the material on record. Merely, because, applicant is ready to join
investigation would not, automatically, entitle the applicant for grant of
anticipatory bail, especially when the case at hand is a complex one involving
substantial amount. Moreover, according to the statement of Mr. Sayed Soleh
Ulla, the present Applicant is alleged to be the mastermind behind the whole
online fraud.
7. The power under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 438
CrPC) is an extraordinary remedy which is to be put in motion when there is
reasonable belief of likely arrest on false or motivated grounds. Such
discretionary power needs to be exercised with caution in complex cases,
such as the present one.
8. In the case in hand, the cheated money of Rs.1.38 crores has yet not
been recovered and as per the report of the Investigating Agency, the
accused/applicant had handled the alleged amount and was instrumental in
transferring amount of Rs.97,82,500/- to other bank accounts. The
prosecution also relies upon CCTV footage which shows that he was in
constant touch with his other co-accused, which fact also lays bare his
complicity in the online fraud in question. It is also apprised that, though, the
accused was served with notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023
(corresponding Section 41/41A Cr.P.C.) but he did not join the investigation.
9. Keeping in mind the overall facts, it is quite clear that the custodial
interrogation in the present matter would be imperative.
10. In view of the above, application seeking anticipatory bail is hereby
dismissed.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JANUARY 28, 2026/ss/pb
