$~11 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011085182025 + BAIL APPLN. 124/2026 SONU KUMAR @ SURAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit & Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. Ms. Manali Singhal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Santosh Sachin, Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat and Mr. Mahavir Dimri, Advs. for complainant with complainant in person. (20) # CNR No. DLHC010153032026 + BAIL APPLN. 1446/2026 CHANDRAMANI KUMAR @ CHUNNU @ DEEPAK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratap Shanker, Mr. Ankit Kumar, Mr. Shreyansh Anand, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. Ms. Manali Singhal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Santosh Sachin, Mr. Deepak Singh Rawat and Mr. Mahavir Dimri, Advs. for complainant with 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09 complainant in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. Both these applications have been filed by the applicants under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 („BNSS‟) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in connection with common FIR No. 552/2024 dated 13.12.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 319/318(4)61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 („BNS‟) and Sections 66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that applicants are in jail for more than 18 months. It is contended that the offences in question have a maximum punishment of 7 years and bearing in mind the long incarceration and the fact that the investigation qua the present applicants is completed, the applicants ought to be released on regular bail. 3. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing for the State as well as Ms. Manali Singhal, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the present bail applications. Both of them have submitted that the applicants are involved in the commission of the aforesaid offence where large sum has been duped of innocent people. It is, thus, contended that one of the bank accounts which was found to be involved in the instant case, the link of which has reached up to the present applicants. It is thus contended that the same bank account has been found to be involved 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09 in as many as 105 complaints on NCRP portal. It is thus contended that bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the applicants are not entitled for regular bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned APP appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainants and have perused the record. 5. It appears that Mr. Mahavir Dimri, who was working as Manager- Accounts & Taxation in M/s Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited (“KISPL”), filed a complaint stating that he received certain WhatsApp messages from an individual, who pretended himself to be Chairman of KISPL. Under bonafide impression and upon being asked by the individual who had sent the message, Mr. Dimri transferred a sum of Rs. 11,32,00,000/- into two different accounts. Eventually, it was alleged that all those accounts were new accounts and there was no instructions from the Chairman. 6. The State by way of the status report has placed on record various facts and circumstances and has established the complicity of both the applicants. 7. It be noted that as of now, the investigating agency had noticed the complicity of accused Asham Syed, who expired in jail, Chandermani Kumar, Sonu Kumar (present applicants) and Mansur Alam (not arrested) and Ms. Priya Rawat (bound down). It be also noted that the charge-sheet qua the present applicants as well as Mansur Alam has been filed insofar as it relates to the Axis Bank account. 8. During the investigation, the amount which was transferred at the instance of the Messenger was found to be Rs.11.32 crores. The same 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09 transferred into 7 accounts and out of those 7 accounts, one account eventually was linked to the present applicants. The investigation qua the Axis Bank account which was found to be linked with the present applicants is completed. 9. It is, however, submitted that the investigation qua 6 other bank accounts is underway and the said account(s) have been involved in 105 complaints. No doubt, all those aspects will have to be inquired into by the investigating agency and the matter will have to be taken to its logical conclusion. The role of the applicants have already been examined and the charge-sheet qua them has also been filed, the trial has not yet commenced and the entire investigation is still not over, the same would naturally take sufficient time for its conclusion. 10. With respect to the involvement of these applicants in FIR Nos.551/2024 and 418/2024 is concerned, the applicants have not arrested in these two cases. The Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 11. The Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,1 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 laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 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 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09 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,3 has observed that once investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed, the continued custody of an accused without compelling reason, amounts to pre- trial punishment, which is unwarranted. Para. 21 of the said decision reads as under: “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. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,4 the Supreme Court has emphasised that prolonged incarceration pending trial, particularly where the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, has to be viewed in the light of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, more importantly the long incarceration and maximum punishment for which the applicants can be held guilty in case the prosecution succeeds, the applicants are directed to be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. 3 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 4 (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09 16. Besides other conditions, the learned Trial Court shall also consider to impose the condition of reporting to the concerned Investigating Agency on a monthly basis unless they are specifically called for on any other particular date. 17. If the applicants‟ complicity is found in any other case, the prosecuting agency shall be at liberty to seek for cancellation of their bail. In case, if the applicants‟ further involvement is found, the Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the bail applications stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 Ab/ksr 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:09