$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010120232026 + BAIL APPLN. 1205/2026 HARMENN SABHERWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nishank Tyagi and Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with Insp. Amit Pratap. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 20.08.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 56/2022 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing qua offence punishable under Section 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). 2. The role attributed to the applicant is that he allegedly facilitated meetings with Government officials in order to secure Government tenders, thereby defrauding people of crores of rupees. Furthermore, there are five cases of a similar nature against the applicant. As stated on his behalf, two 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 The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2026 at 10:03:59 have been withdrawn, while three cases remain pending against him. 3. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi1, the Supreme Court observed that the grant or refusal of bail is a matter of judicial discretion that must be exercised judiciously through a balanced evaluation of prima facie satisfaction of guilt, the nature and gravity of the charges, flight risk, and the apprehension of witness tampering or subversion of justice. The relevant para nos. 18-19 are extracted as under: - 18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179] ]. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11) “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting 1 (2005) 8 SCC 21. 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 22/08/2026 at 10:03:59 bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)” 19. This Court also in specific terms held that: (SCC pp. 536-37, para 14) “[T]he condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.” (Emphasis Supplied) 4. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles and the fact that the applicant was earlier declared a proclaimed offender when he was granted interim bail, this Court finds that the conditions of interim bail were flouted by the applicant. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to 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 22/08/2026 at 10:03:59 grant regular bail to the applicant. 6. Thus the application, at this stage, stands dismissed. 7. Liberty is, however, granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application after a lapse of some more time. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 20, 2026 Nc 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 22/08/2026 at 10:03:59