[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ravi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 March, 2026
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 549/2025
RAVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Mr. Sunil Yadav
and Ms. Geetika Verma, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with Inspector Vishal Choudhary, PS
EOW.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 273/2019 of
Police Station EOW for offence under Section 406/409/420/120B IPC.
2. This bail application for the first time was listed before the
predecessor bench on 10.02.2025 and thereafter, remained pending before
different benches. Today, the application has come up before me for the first
time. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP
for State assisted by IO/Inspector Vishal Choudhary.
3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that the accused/applicant
along with four others were running a company namely Star Global Star
Limited and they induced 156 individuals to invest in the said company
BAIL APPLN. 549/2025 Page 1 of 4 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: 2026.03.10 17:15:42 -07'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:10.03.2026
17:40:58
involved in business of fisheries, floriculture and plantation of medicinal
trees, assuring them high returns. The accused persons including the
accused/applicant collected almost Rs. 13.4 Crores from innocent investors
and after siphoning off the funds, all the accused persons fled away.
Adopting the same modus operandi, the accused persons cheated various
individuals, which led to registration of five more cases of similar nature
across the country.
4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted by learned counsel
that the accused/applicant is in jail for past four and a half years and trial
will take a long time to conclude. It is also submitted by learned counsel that
there is no evidence to show that the accused/applicant personally contacted
any of the victims of the fraud or collected any money from anyone.
Learned counsel for accused/applicant also contends that co-accused Rajesh
Kumar Laura has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench on
07.11.2024, so the accused/applicant deserves the same relief by parity.
5. Learned APP for State strongly opposes the bail application, taking
me through the record and contends that there can be no parity between
Rajesh Kumar Laura and the present accused/applicant because against the
present accused/applicant there is a charge of offence under Section 409
IPC, which was not against Rajesh Kumar Laura. It is further submitted by
learned APP that the present accused/applicant was a Director as well as
authorized signatory of the said company and for the criminal breach of
trust, he has been charged for offence under Section 409 IPC which is
BAIL APPLN. 549/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.03.10 17:15:32 -07'00'
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:10.03.2026
17:40:58
punishable with life imprisonment. It is also contended that one of the
Directors of the accused/applicant has absconded and is not traceable till
date.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that his
name has been misused by the other accused persons insofar as he was not
even aware about his having been made a Director in the company. It is
submitted that the accused/applicant is a petty fruit vendor and is not aware
as to where the collected amount of Rs. 13.4 Crores went.
7. As regards the claim of parity, the charge against accused Rajesh
Kumar Laura is for offence under Section 420 IPC and not under Section
409 IPC, which charge is against the accused/applicant, being Director of
the said company. Therefore, there is no question of any parity between the
two. The offence under Section 409 IPC is punishable with life
imprisonment. Admittedly, the accused/applicant has opted not to challenge
framing of the charge for offence under Section 409 IPC.
8. Prima facie, it is not believable that a person would become Director
of a company without his knowledge. According to the material on record,
the present accused/applicant and co-accused Gajanand Kaushik held 50%
shares each in the said company. The accused Gajanand Kaushik continues
to be in jail. Rather, as mentioned above the accused/applicant feigns
ignorance as to where the cheated amount was spent.
9. The present case is not a solitary case against the accused/applicant.
BAIL APPLN. 549/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
Digitally Signed 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.03.10 17:15:22 -07'00'
Signing Date:10.03.2026
17:40:58
As mentioned above, five more cases of similar nature already stand
registered against the accused/applicant across the country in different
States. The Court cannot be oblivious to the agony of hundreds of those
gullible investors, who entrusted their hard earned money, many of whom
invested their lifelong savings and the accused persons took away the same.
10. As regards the delay in trial, the same is explained by the learned
prosecutor on the ground that the order framing charge was challenged by
the accused Rajesh Kumar Laura by way of revision petition and the matter
remained pending there. The prosecution evidence commenced on
24.06.2025 and by now three witnesses of prosecution already stand
examined as per the IO. Further, the delay was also caused because
supplementary chargesheet against two accused persons who had absconded
and were declared proclaimed persons was filed on 21.08.2023.
11. Considering the overall circumstances as discussed above, at this
stage, I do not find any reason to grant bail to the accused/applicant.
Therefore, this bail application is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the
concerned jail superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant
forthwith. Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.10 17:15:12 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 10, 2026/dr
BAIL APPLN. 549/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
