[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Amit Bhandari vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 March, 2026
* I N T H E H I G H CO U RT O F DE L H I AT NE W DE L H I
Reserved on: February 10, 2026
% Pronounced on: March 10, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4622/2025
AMIT BHANDARI ....Applicant
Through: Ms. Pallavi Bhatt & Mr. Akhilesh K.
Singh, Advocates.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State with Mr. Bhuman Bansal,
Advocate Ms. Rachna Maheshwari
and Ms. Mannu Bansal Advocates for
complainant. Insp. Jaiveer Singh, PS:
EOW.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 read with
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, the applicant,
namely Amit Bhandari seeks grant of regular bail in proceeding arising out of
FIR No.129/2024 dated 01.11.2024 registered at Police Station Economic
Offences Wing under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 65/66 of the IT Act.
1 Hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'
2. Succinctly put, an FIR was registered against the applicant and co-
accused Vinay Negi2 on a complaint of Shri Jackie Varma, authorised
representative of M/s. KNAB Finance Advisors Pvt. Ltd3, a fintech based
digital lending platform. During internal examination of the company, it was
discovered that though the company's records showed successful
disbursement of loans to its Clients, the actual borrowers had not received the
sanctioned amounts, allegedly as the co-accused, who had joined the
company as Assistant Manager (operations) and was entrusted with full
access to the company's Loan Management System, misused his access to
forge disbursement-related emails, manipulated beneficiaries' bank account
details, and diverted company funds amounting to Rs.3,23,00,000/- into his
personal bank accounts as well as to the bank account of the applicant.
3. Investigation revealed that huge sums of Rs.1,57,20,629/- and
Rs.98,30,000/- were fraudulently transferred from the company's accounts to
SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank accounts of the co-accused respectively, and a
sum of Rs.68,05,000/- was also transferred to applicant's AU Small Finance
Bank account, who then transferred it to the co-accused's Bank of Baroda
account after deducting a marginal amount. Moreover, the applicant also
received a sum of around Rs.20,000/- directly from the personal account of
the co-accused.
4. The co-accused, upon arrest on 08.05.2025, in his disclosure statement
stated that he paid to the applicant a sum of around Rs.17 lakhs to Rs.19
Hereinafter referred to as 'co-accused'
Hereinafter referred to as 'company'
lakhs for his involvement. This led to arrest of the applicant on 16.05.2025.
5. In these facts, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in judicial custody since 16.05.2025; the investigation has
already been concluded; the chargesheet has also been filed, the applicant is a
person with clean antecedents; the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case as he had no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged
offence and only acted under instructions of the co-accused, his cousin
brother; the applicant was not aware of the illegal activities of the co-
accused. In view of above, custody of the applicant would serve no purpose,
more so, whence the prosecution case against the applicant rests entirely on
documentary evidence.
6. Even otherwise, learned counsel submitted that the entire amount that
was credited into the account of the applicant was immediately/ promptly
transferred to the account of the co-accused, after deducting of loan amount
given by the applicant to him which clearly demonstrates that the applicant
merely acted as a passive conduit and not as an active participant in the
alleged fraudulent scheme. The disclosure statement of the co-accused, which
is inadmissible in law, was also belied being incorrect as there was no proof
or money trail to substantiate the allegation.
7. Per contra, learned APP for State relying upon the Status Report
submitted that both applicant and the co-accused are specifically named in
the complaint and the allegations, upon investigation, are substantiated from
the account details and transaction records. As per material collected during
investigation, the applicant was actively involved in the commission of the
offence, as he had voluntarily provided and permitted use of his bank account
for facilitating misappropriation of the defrauded amount, thereby acting in
active connivance with the co-accused. Moreover, the applicant was the
authorised signatory of the bank account through which the siphoned funds
were routed. The co-accused, as an agent/ employee/ custodian of the
company, fraudulently transferred more than Rs.2.5 Crores to his own bank
accounts as well as an amount of Rs.68,05,000/- into the bank account of the
applicant, who further routed the misappropriated amount to another bank
account of the co-accused, after retaining marginal sum as a commission.
8. In view of the serious nature involved, the learned APP submitted that
there exists a reasonable apprehension that in the event of release on bail, the
applicant may influence the witnesses or hamper the trial proceedings.
9. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned APP for the
State and also perused the documents as well as the Status Report on record.
10. As per chargesheet, co-accused alleged to be the mastermind of the
whole fraudulent scheme, exploited the operational practice followed in the
company and thereby siphoned off more than Rs.3 Crores over a period of
time, of which Rs.68,05,000/- was directly credited into the bank account of
the applicant, who promptly transferred it to the bank account of the co-
accused, after deducting a marginal amount. Strangely, the applicant who is a
literate person of substantial knowledge in the field of accounting, proceeded
to deal with a huge sum of Rs.68,05,000/-, and that too after deducting some
amount from it. Admittedly, the applicant and co-accused are cousins, and it
is not the case of the applicant that they had strained relationship inter se
them. Thus, the knowledge of the applicant, his conscious involvement, his
relationship and his silence qua the above, ring a bell for not releasing him on
bail, at this stage.
11. Barring the loss to the complaiant, the offence herein involved also
goes onto effect the dynamics, economics, and development of the Country,
resulting in serious on-going repercussions. The facts involved herein reflect
that there were repeated acts of transfer, not out of impulse, but calculative
and with a pre-meditated intent solely with an objective of personal gain
regardless of the consequences to the community. Since the present FIR is
involving an economic offence, which, are on the rise in the recent times,
grant of bail in such cases needs to be viewed carefully and requires caution
to be exercised. Reliance is placed upon State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal4, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation5, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I.6, State of Bihar & Anr.
vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai7, Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement8.
12. Lastly, though investigation is concluded and the chargesheet filed,
however, giving the magnitude/ type/ kind of the transactions and scrutiny
involved, and when it is not the case of the applicant that there is any kind of
delay, much less, inordinate or otherwise, on the part of the prosecution in
progress of the trial, the said factors do not weigh in favour of the applicant.
(1987) 2 SCC 364
(2013) 7 SCC 466
(2013) 7 SCC 439
(2017) 13 SCC 751
2023 SC OnLine 1486
13. Ergo, in view of aforesaid discussions, since there are no grounds
made out for releasing the applicant on bail, the present bail application is
dismissed.
14. Needless to say, since the expressions of opinion, if any, are for the
purposes of adjudicating the present application only, they have no bearing
on the overall merits/ trial involved in the matter.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MARCH 10, 2026/Ab/GA
