$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1534/2026 PARTHA DASS .....Applicant Through: Mr. Jitender Kr. Sharma and Mr. Ashish Pradhan, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH IO EOW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 10.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.133/2017 dated 16.08.2017 registered at PS.: EOW, Delhi under Sections 409/418/420/120B/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Banning Act, 1978. 2. At the outset, learned APP has handed over the Status Report, which is taken on record. 3. As per FIR, in the year 2012, the complainant came into contact with M/s. Ramel Industries Ltd. through one Balram, who introduced him to the company. It is alleged that the Directors of the company, including the present applicant, induced the complainant to invest in the company’s debenture and deposit schemes by assuring him of attractive returns. Relying upon such representations, the complainant invested a total sum 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:08 of Rs.71,500/- in three fixed deposits and one recurring deposit. Thereafter, the company abruptly closed its Delhi office in July 2013 and absconded without returning his investments, leading to the registration of the present FIR. 4. During investigation, statements of 115 investors/ victims were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per which, M/s. Ramel Industries Ltd., acting through its Directors, induced the investors to invest their money by making false representations and promising lucrative returns. The amount alleged to have been invested in cash amounting to approximately Rs.37.23 lacs. It has further been revealed from information obtained from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that M/s. Ramel Industries Ltd. was neither registered with the RBI as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) nor authorized by SEBI to issue securities to the public. 5. In this factual backdrop, this Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned APP. 6. As borne out, the present is a case wherein, despite having been issued Notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has failed to join investigation. In fact, by virtue of the order dated 27.05.2025, the applicant was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the learned Trial Court. 7. Though, learned counsel for applicant seeks to draw benefit of the orders dated 13.05.2024, 06/02.07.2024, 05/16.08.2024 and 11/16.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No.10402/2023 entitled ‘Partha Das vs. Union of India through CBI’; B.A. 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:08 No.11203/2023 entitled ‘Partha Das vs. The Union of India through CBI’; B.A. No.2545/2024 entitled ‘Partha Das vs. The Union of India through CBI’; and B.A. No.11120/2023 entitled ‘Partha Das vs. The Union of India through C.B.I’ respectively, whereby the applicant herein was granted regular bail in four separate FIRs, however, such reliance is misplaced as the aforesaid orders were passed in applications seeking regular bail whereas, the relief sought herein is an anticipatory bail, which, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab: (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Devinder Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488, the threshold and parameters are wholly different from a regular bail. 8. Also, though learned counsel for applicant seeks to argue that since the applicant did not have the power to operate the bank accounts of M/s. Ramel Industries Ltd. and was not directly involved therein he is entitled to anticipatory bail. However, considering all the aforesaid, as also since it is not disputed that the applicant was a Director of M/s. Ramel Industries Ltd., the same cannot come to the aid of the applicant at this stage. 9. Thus, taking note of the overall facts and circumstances involved herein, the nature and gravity of the accusations levelled against the applicant, the severity of the punishment prescribed in the event of conviction, antecedents of similar nature and particularly, since the mode and manner of cheating, role of the accused persons, the money trail and involvement of co-conspirators is yet to be unearthed, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required and a case for grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage, is not made out. 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:08 10. Lastly, in light of the overall facts and circumstances involved herein, it is hardly of any significance that the charge-sheet followed by a supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed by the prosecution. 11. Accordingly, the present bail application 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 10, 2026/Ab/DA 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 15/07/2026 at 11:34:08