$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1366/2026 HARBHAJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nadeem Hussain, Adv. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH SHO PS CYBER WEST & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State. SI Ankur, PS: Cyber West. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No.21/2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4)/319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”] registered at Cyber Police Station West, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of other co-accused persons. He has been in jail since 06.10.2025. The investigation has been carried out. The chargesheet has been filed. There is no allegation of pocketing any money by the applicant. The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. 3. The application is opposed by learned APP for the State, and it is 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 31/07/2026 at 13:31:50 submitted that the accused persons have been found to have cheated innocent people to the tune of Rs.16,53,000/-. Some amount has been credited into the account of co-accused Mr. Lavlesh. It is, thus, submitted that the application is not entitled for bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. 5. As per Nominal Roll the applicant is in jail since 26.10.2025 and has completed around 9 months of total incarceration and there is no other pending case against the present applicant. 6. The allegations against the applicant are that he facilitated co-accused Lavlesh in opening bank accounts and paid him ₹2,000/- for each account. It is alleged that the said accounts were used by co-accused Abhishek for the commission of the offence. According to the prosecution, six bank accounts were opened in the name of Lavlesh. 7. It is, however, undisputed that Abhishek was arrested on 05.02.2026 and was granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2026. Co-accused Lavlesh was also granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2026. At present, only another accused, Niranjan, and the applicant are in judicial custody. The other accused persons, namely Tejpal, Aman and Tarun @ Bunty, have not been arrested as they joined the investigation. 8. In Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana,1 the Supreme Court has held that though parity is a relevant consideration while deciding an application for bail, the same is not to be applied mechanically and the Court is required to undertake a comparative assessment of the role 1 (2021) 6 SCC 230 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 31/07/2026 at 13:31:50 attributed to the applicant vis-à-vis the co-accused who have already been granted bail. 9. The comparative exercise mandated in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra) would indicate that the allegations against co-accused Abhishek are qualitatively graver than those attributed to the present applicant. The allegation against the present applicant is confined to facilitating the opening of bank accounts by co-accused Lavlesh and introducing him to co-accused Abhishek and Tarun @ Bunty. In contrast, as per the prosecution case, Abhishek is alleged to be the mastermind of the offence and to have been in complete control of its execution. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant cannot be said to stand on a footing worse than the said co-accused and is, therefore, entitled to claim the benefit of parity. 10. The applicant's claim for bail does not rest on the principle of parity alone. Tested on the settled parameters governing the grant of bail, continued detention is equally unwarranted. The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during the course of trial and not to subject him to pre-trial punishment. Once the Court is satisfied that his presence can be secured by appropriate conditions, further incarceration loses its legal justification. 11. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,2 has reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, and that the presumption of innocence continues to operate until guilt is established in accordance with law. 12. The parameters governing the grant of bail have also been succinctly 2(2018) 3 SCC 22 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 31/07/2026 at 13:31:50 laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,3 wherein the Supreme Court held that while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to balance the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, antecedents of the accused and the overall interests of justice. 13. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,4 has further observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused during trial and that pre-trial detention should not assume a punitive character. These observations were expounded as follows: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” 14. The investigation qua the applicant stands concluded, and the charge- sheet has already been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years. The applicant has remained in judicial custody for about nine months. No further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. 15. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to release the applicant on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial Court. 3(2010) 14 SCC 496 4(2012) 1 SCC 40 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 31/07/2026 at 13:31:50 16. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 29, 2026/p/SA 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 31/07/2026 at 13:31:50