$~ 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 33/2026 ANKUR KUMAR NIGAM .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Rajnish PS Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. The applicant by way of the instant application seeks regular bail in connection with FIR no.583/2024 registered at police Station Greater Kailash for the offences under Sections 420/408/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has made various submissions. It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, there is no relation between the applicant and K. R. Manglam Global School. He submits that the account, in which the amount of Rs.96.52 lakh has allegedly been transferred, does not belong to the present applicant. According to him, the entire story is concocted, having no basis to establish the guilt of the present applicant. It is pointed out that the applicant is in Jail since 15.04.2025 and has no criminal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:16:04 antecedents. Since the investigation is completed and the chargesheet has been filed, the applicant should be granted regular bail. 3. The submissions are strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing for the State and as well as on behalf of the complainant. It is pointed out that the applicant was employed as an Accountant in K. R. Manglam, New Delhi. The photocopy of the offer letter dated 16.12.2023 has been shown, which is part of the chargesheet. 4. It is submitted that the applicant systematically orchestrated the embezzlement of Rs. 96,52,315/- through 96 forged cheque transactions by forging signatures of authorized signatories. The amount was siphoned off to accounts of his associates Monika, Nisha and Narender. He manipulated entries in the Tally software and created fictitious vouchers to cover the fraud. It was also seen that part of the amount has been transferred from the school account to the account of Nisha, Monika and Narender. All three co- accused persons have not yet been arrested and are absconding. It is submitted that they were summoned by the trial court and were asked to furnish bail bonds. That order has been stayed by the Sessions Court. It is contended that unless three co-accused persons are apprehended, investigation cannot be concluded. The applicant did not cooperate with the investigation nor facilitate the recovery of the embezzled funds. 5. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon perusal of the record, the Court finds prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the siphoning of Rs. 96.52 lakh. The chargesheet reveals that the applicant was employed as an Accountant, was in exclusive possession of cheque books, had access to bank accounts, and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:16:04 his disclosure statement admits to forging signatures and transferring funds to Monika, Nisha and Narender. He also admitted to creating false vouchers and manipulating Tally entries to conceal the fraud. 7. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI,1 the Supreme Court held, “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” 8. In State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai,2 the Supreme Court held, “9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent claimed parity with twenty eight (28) other accused persons in the same case who have already been granted bail. We find that though some of accused are released on bail most of them are teachers who performed the invigilation duty and members of the Managing Committee against whom the charges are not so serious. It is not appropriate to compare the case of the accused-respondent, with those who were on bail, as the respondent is alleged to be the king-pin of the entire crime.” “13. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Usually socio-economic offence has deep rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously. Further we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency is going to file additional charge sheet. 1 (2013) 7 SCC 439 2 (2017) 13 SCC 751 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:16:04 Therefore, the respondent's presence in the custody may be necessary for further investigation.” 9. Applying the above principles, the applicant is alleged to be the main perpetrator who orchestrated a grave economic offence involving systematic forgery and embezzlement of school funds. The prima facie evidence against the applicant is strong. The offence is grave and has significant societal impact. The investigation is incomplete as the co-accused are absconding and the supplementary chargesheet is pending. Long custody does not automatically entitle the applicant to bail when the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence justify continued detention. The applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused whose roles are distinct and less serious. There is also a reasonable apprehension that if released on bail, the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. 10. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to grant regular bail. The application is dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 8, 2026/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:16:04