$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1787/2026 RAKESH RAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Tripathi and Mr. Chirag Khurana, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Bijender. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 27.07.2026 1. The applicant, by way of the present application, seeks grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.51/2013 for the offence under Sections 408/409/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] registered at PS: Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi. 2. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. The charges have been framed, and the applicant has already suffered 02 years, 09 months and 13 days incarceration as on 20.07.2026. There is no likelihood of early completion of trial, therefore, the applicant be released on regular bail. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also places reliance on the decision in the case of Kapil Wadhwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 and contends that the Court, despite looking at the fact that there were 11 cases pending against the applicant therein, granted regular 1 2025 INSC 1440 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:51 bail, bearing in mind the long incarceration. 4. The submissions are opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State. She contends that bearing in mind the number of cases pending against the applicant, the applicant should not be granted bail. 5. It is submitted that even the applicant was an absconder and after great difficulty, he has been arrested. Ms. Gupta also submits that the complainant company since has shut down and further information regarding witnesses is not traceable in view of non-availability of the company’s staff and officers, therefore, the prosecution faced certain difficulty in carrying forward the trial at the desired pace. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 7. In the cited decision of Kapil Wadhwan, the Court has considered various aspects and noted the pendency of multiple cases against the said petitioner. It was also found that the applicant therein was in jail for more than two and a half years. The offences were punishable under Section 409/420/ 477-A of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in that case. The allegations are regarding siphoning of crores of money. 8. Only in the instant case, it is noted that the allegation against the applicant is that the amount of ESI, i.e. Employees’ State Insurance and EPF i.e., Employees’ Provident Fund, was diverted by the applicant in order to deceive the complainant-company. In paragraph no.2 and 3 of the status report, the following position has been taken by the prosecution: “2. That the brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR was 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:51 registered on the complaint of Sh. Raghavendra Kumar Verma, Authorized Representative of Mis Spanco BPO Services Ltd. and the company. The company had employed more than· 7000 persons in India. In order to support the said staff and in order to comply with the Employees State Insurance (ESI) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) mandate, they outsourced the work of depositing and maintaining ESI and EPF work to petitioner accused Rakesh Raj, on the recommendation of their Genera] Manager, Sh. Ajay Bhola in the year 2009. Before outsourcing the above work, the payments for ESI and EPF were being made through cheques in the name of "SBI Account PF" and "SBI Account ESI" respectively as per the instructions from the authority. As per the instruction from accused Rakesh Raj, the same were started to be drawn in the name of "ESICO ACCOUNTS.IN" for ESI and "CEPF ACCOUNTS.IN" for EPF, and the same were used to be entrusted to accused/applicant Rakesh Raj for depositing the same in State Bank of India. 3. That later on, a notice had been received from ESI Department that they had not been receiving ESI contributions of the workers. On being enquired by the complainant, it was revealed that these cheques were being deposited in Bank of Baroda instead of State Bank of India and accused/applicant Rakesh Raj had been submitting challans bearing alleged forged acknowledgement stamp of SBI. It was further alleged that accused Rakesh Raj fraudulently deposited the said entrusted cheques in the account maintained with Bank of Baroda, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi and got the amounts encashed to the tune of Rs 9,66,03,669/-.” 9. This Court in Narendra Kumar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence2 has held that:- “26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the Applicant has been judicial custody since 04.06.2025 The Complaint has already been filed in the Court. The entire evidence has already been collected and is primarily be documentary. He has no criminal antecedents. There is little likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses, who are all official witnesses. Further, as observed in the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, there exist no extraordinary circumstances to deny the bail to the Applicant.” [Emphasis Supplied] 10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI3 dealing with the issue 2 2025:DHC:8914. 3 SLP Crl. No. 5650/2011 order dated 23.11.2011. 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:51 of bail post completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet held that:- “26. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of the alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused it released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filling of the chargesheet.” 11. The Court finds that the applicant is on bail in connection with all other pending cases. In the instant case, the applicant has suffered 02 years, 09 months of incarceration. The entire investigation seems to be based on documentary evidence. The complainant-company itself has been shut down. The officials and the employees are untraceable. 12. Under these circumstances, the Court is compelled to grant regular bail to the applicant. 13. Let the applicant be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court. Let the trial court impose the conditions bearing in mind the past conduct of the applicant. 14. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 27, 2026/p/nk 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 30/07/2026 at 14:21:51