BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 AYANSHU SRIVASTAV @ NIMESH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddhant Kumar Singh, Mr. Divyansh Singh and Mr. Suraj Singh, Advs. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with Mr. Abhay Saini, Adv SI Sanjay Yadav, PS Special Cell CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 23.07.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 546/2024, dated 02.12.2024, registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections 419/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. I have heard Mr. Siddhant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. The petitioner was granted interim protection by order of this Court dated 28.04.2026 and the State was also directed to file a status report. Mr. Srivastava has placed a status report on record. 4. The prosecution’s case, as it appears from the status report, may be 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42 BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 2 of 6 summarized as follows: a. The said FIR was registered on the complaint of Mr. Kunal Saini, wherein he alleged that he was cheated out of an amount of Rs.1.84 crores on the pretext of investment in foreign trading. He alleged that the said sum was transferred by him into different accounts, upon representation of callers that the funds would be invested in lucrative investments. b. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was allegedly transferred to an account in the name of M/s Green Planet Property Developers, which was the proprietorship concern of one Suryaprakash [A/c No. 28600210002667 in UCO Bank]. Suryaprakash and another co-accused, Fakhruddin Khan [hereinafter, “Fakhruddin”], were found to be operating the aforesaid bank account, and mobile phones were recovered from them which contained SIM cards connected to the aforesaid account [Mobile Phone No. 9044832741 recovered from Fakhruddin, and 9170532741 recovered from Suryaprakash]. They were both arrested. c. The case against the present petitioner is based upon the disclosure statement of Fakhruddin, who stated that he had met the petitioner at a hotel in Lucknow and provided the bank details, linked mobile number, and devices to the petitioner. d. During the period that the petitioner was protected from coercive action by the learned Sessions Court, he was called for investigation on 08.09.2025, which he duly joined. In his interrogation, he denied all allegations and only admitted to have 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42 BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 3 of 6 formally met Fakhruddin once in 2022 at an NGO in Lucknow, whereas the offence took place in 2024. e. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner concealed material facts during his interrogation, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application vide order dated 24.12.2025. f. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court wherein he was granted interim protection by order of this Court dated 28.04.2026, pursuant to which he joined investigation on 11.05.2026. g. In the course of interrogation, the prosecution contends that the petitioner made several disclosures, which also revealed the following inconsistencies/contradictions in his statements: i. During investigation, it was found that several mobile numbers [+91 7376855648, +91 8433728086, +91 8756584124, and +91 9839821281] were saved in the mobile phone of accused Fakhruddin as belonging to the petitioner. However, during interrogation, the petitioner admitted using only mobile number +91 9839821281, and denied any knowledge of mobile number +91 8433728086. However, CDR analysis revealed that mobile number + 91 8433728086 had been operated in a Samsung Galaxy F-02S handset in which the bank-linked mobile number [+91 9044832741] as well as the petitioner's present mobile number [+91 8429992817] had also been used. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42 BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 4 of 6 ii. The petitioner further stated that he was using only two mobile numbers [+91 8429992817 and [+91 9839821281] and did not retain any mobile handset for a long duration. However, the investigation revealed that mobile number +91 8429992817 had been continuously used by him before as well as after he joined the investigation, albeit in different handsets. iii. When questioned again about the Samsung Galaxy F-02S handset, the petitioner stated that the said handset had been given to him by Ankit Dwivedi [hereinafter, “Ankit”], which he had used for about two to three months before returning it. iv. The petitioner had initially denied knowing the arrested accused persons, including Fakhruddin and Suryaprakash, or having met them at any hotel in Lucknow. However, during subsequent interrogation, he admitted that he had met Fakhruddin and others at a hotel in Lucknow through Ankit, whom he had known while working together in an NGO in 2021. v. The petitioner also furnished mobile number 9873836785, claiming that it belonged to Ankit. However, investigation and CDR analysis revealed that the number, in fact, belonged to Ms. Afsana, who, upon examination, stated that she did not know Ankit. 5. Mr. Singh submits that the petitioner has joined investigation on three occasions, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, and has also 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42 BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 5 of 6 provided a detailed reply to the IO. According to him, the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation and furnished adequate explanations, but the allegation of non-cooperation is founded upon his refusal to make self-incriminatory statements. 6. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner made disclosures during the investigation, which were inconsistent with his earlier statements, thereby revealing material contradictions, as enumerated above from the status report. According to Mr. Srivastava, the explanations offered by the petitioner in the later stage of investigation, are a clear afterthought. In these circumstances, it is contended that his custodial interrogation is necessary to illicit the truth. 7. Having considered the submissions of both sides, I am of the view that the petitioner has not effectively cooperated with the investigation, despite interim protection granted by the Sessions Court and by this Court. 8. At the first instance, while the matter was pending before the Sessions Court, the petitioner claimed to have been using only a VIVO handset for two years. However, it was revealed in the course of investigation that the petitioner’s admitted mobile number [+91 8429992817] and another number [+91 9044832741] were both used in a Samsung galaxy handset in the past. This is significant because the other number mentioned above [+91 9044832741] was the telephone number linked to the same bank account [A/c No. 28600210002667 in UCO Bank], in which part of the proceeds of the alleged offence were remitted. It is only after this information came to light, that the petitioner contended that he had borrowed the Samsung Galaxy handset from Ankit 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42 BAIL APPLN. 1626/2026 Page 6 of 6 and returned it after two to three months. These facts were within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, and his stand at different stages of the investigation have been at variance with each other. 9. A second element of non-cooperation stems from the fact that the petitioner allegedly gave an incorrect mobile number of Ankit to the Investigating Officer. The number was found to belong to one Ms. Afsana, who denied knowing Ankit at all. 10. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner while clothed with interim protection, I am of the view that the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out at this stage. It may be borne in mind that the Supreme Court, in State v. Anil Sharma1 and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, has emphasised that custodial interrogation is far more effective in eliciting the truth than interrogation while the accused is clothed with the protection of the Court. 11. Having regard to these factors, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The petition is therefore, dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 23, 2026 SS/AD/ 1 (1997) 7 SCC 187. 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157. 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 27/07/2026 at 15:04:42