[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vikas Kumar vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2026
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1199/2025
VIKAS KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shreesh Chadha, Mr. Aman
Singh Bakshi and Divjot Singh
Bhatia, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State
with SI Mohit
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 123/2017 of
PS Narela for offence under Section 420/406/120B/34 IPC.
2. This bail application came up for the first hearing on 27.03.2025
before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned
before different benches. Thereafter, along with 179 such old pending bail
applications, this application was transferred to this bench and today is the
first hearing before me.
3. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP
for the State assisted by the IO/SI Mohit.
BAIL APPLN. 1199/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d43
5f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60
402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
4. Broadly speaking, prosecution case as flowing out of FIR is as
follows. In the month of August, 2015, one Amit Sharma (not an accused in
this case) called up the complainant de facto, introducing himself as "from
Finance Ministry (Bombay)" and informed that a refund of Rs.5,00,000/-
had been received in the office and in order to obtain the same, the
complainant de facto should deposit Rs.26,00,000/- in a bank account.
Accordingly, the complainant de facto deposited Rs.26,00,000/- in that bank
account but did not get the refund and rather Amit Sharma switched off his
mobile phone. Thereafter, again in October, 2015 one D.D. Singh (not an
accused in this case) called up the complainant de facto assuring to send the
refund but demanded Rs.31,00,000/- and the complainant de facto deposited
that amount also in the bank account of that person, but thereafter D.D.
Singh also switched off his mobile phone. Again in the month of January,
2016, one Amit and one Mahajan (not accused persons in this case) called
up the complainant de facto assuring to transfer the refund amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- in his account and in lieu thereof, they made him deposit
Rs.80,00,000/- in the bank account.
5. As against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant
contends that the version presented by the complainant de facto in the FIR is
not even believable. It is submitted that the accused/applicant that he is in
custody since 02.08.2024 despite being innocent.
6. Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Mohit opposes the bail application on
the ground that the accused/applicant is involved in five more cases of
similar nature and is also a recipient of approximately Rs.30,00,000/- from
BAIL APPLN. 1199/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb48
35d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2
Date: 2026.03.11 17:28:42 -07'00'
two of the co-accused persons.
7. In response, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- received from two persons was towards brokerage
as the accused/applicant is working as a property dealer in Mohali. As
regards the remaining cases, it is submitted by learned counsel that the
accused/applicant was acquitted in three cases after full dress trial; in one
case, the FIR was quashed; and one case is pending trial, in which he is
already on bail.
8. Considering the overall circumstances described above, especially the
strange claim of prosecution that to obtain refund of Rs.5,00,000/-, the
complainant de facto spent more than Rs.80,00,000/-, I find no reason to
further deprive the accused/applicant liberty. Therefore, the bail application
is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on 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.
9. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
10. Of course, nothing observed in this order shall be read to the prejudice
of either side at the final stage of the trial.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569a
f3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT
OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003,
KATHPALIA
st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996
b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.11 17:28:58 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 11, 2026/'rs'
BAIL APPLN. 1199/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
