$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1703/2026 NITYANAND UPADHYAY .....Applicant Through: Mr. M. K. Singh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT F DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh and Mr. Ashish Mahani, Advocates with SI Ankit Sagar, PS: Neb Sarai Mr. Punit Basist, Ms. Kirti Tanwar, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 07.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present bail application under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.105/2026 dated 25.02.2026 registered under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS.: Neb Sarai, Delhi. 2. Status Report handed over by the learned APP is taken on record. 3. Succinctly put, as per complaint made by the complainant, he and his wife, came in contact with applicant in the year 2023, when he induced them to invest in deposit scheme of the Company, i.e., “M/s Unique Strategies Solution” (Entity) by assuring high returns. Believing the same, a total amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) between 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 11:16:56 March 2023 and July 2025 was invested into various bank accounts of the Entity and the applicant via multiple transactions. 4. Subsequently, although an alleged interest of approximately Rs.13,03,500/- was received by the compliant, however, the applicant stopped making payments from July 2025. Thence, during enquiry, it was found that the Entity did not exist at the said address and in fact the applicant had issued forged and fabricated FD Certificates. Pursuant thereto, the complainant made a demand for refund, however, the applicant refused to return the amount involved. This resulted in registration of the present FIR. 5. During further investigation, various notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) were served upon the applicant and the co-accused person, whereafter, although the applicant joined investigation, however, he had given contradictory statements. In fact, the applicant herein was the financial advisor. 6. It is under this factual backdrop that this Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP as also the learned counsel for the complainant. 7. The above contents of the documents filed alongwith the Status Report, evince that the co-accused person has claimed himself to be a Director of the Entity. The relevant extract of the Interrogation Report dated 02.07.2026 of the co-accused person states as under:- 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 11:16:56 8. The relevant extract of the Interrogation Report dated 06.04.2026 of the applicant is also extracted herein as under:- 9. As borne out, the applicant has given evasive responses and there are contradictions therein, and thus further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Further, although there are no documents bearing the signatures of the applicant, however, being a financial advisor of the Entity it is hard to believe that he did not have any knowledge about them 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 11:16:56 and/ or qua the FDR’s issued from time to time, and that too for a period of two years from 2023 till 2025 continuously. Moreover, admittedly there were numerous transactions in the bank account of the applicant during the said period of 2023 till 2025 of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and some of those were directly made in the bank account of the applicant by the complainant as also his wife. Despite thereto, strangely today learned counsel for the applicant has repeatedly addressed the co-accused person as a Director of the Entity, whence is a Proprietor thereof. 10. Under such suspicious circumstances, there is no reason to anticipatory bail to the applicant. 11. In light of the afore-going as also taking a cumulative view of the facts and circumstances involved, the present application seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. 12. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved. SAURABH BANERJEE, J. JULY 07, 2026/So 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 11:16:56