$~102 & 103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 102 # CNR No. DLHC010358832026 + BAIL APPLN. 3161/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23811/2026, CRL.M.A. 23812/2026 ARUN RAMASWAMY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Prakash, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Mr. Abhya Praveen, Mr. Nitin Garg, Mr. Pankaj Paliwal, Ms. Ridhika Singh and Ms. Priyamvada Solanki, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with SI Rahul Lamba. 103 # CNR No. DLHC010358842026 + BAIL APPLN. 3162/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23816/2026, CRL.M.A. 23817/2026 ARUN RAMASWAMY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Prakash, Ms. Divyangna Malik, Mr. Abhya Praveen Mr. Nitin Garg, Mr. Pankaj Paliwal, Ms. Ridhika Singh and Ms. Priyambedi Solanki, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with SI Rahul Lamba. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:15 2. These petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') read with Section 528 of BNSS seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 190 of 2023 registered at Saket Police station under sections 406/420/120B/506/34 IPC and in FIR No. 138 of 2024 registered at Saket Police station under sections 406/420/120B/506/34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of co-accused and has no role to play in the alleged transaction. It is his wife only who has some money dealing with the complainant and this is only a civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour only to extort money from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present case is only for the purpose of arm twisting the petitioners to pay the money to the complainant. He further submits that it is not a recovery suit and the tax payers’ money cannot be used in this way. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 162, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, (2023) 8 SCC 632, Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, in support of his contentions. 6. Per contra learned APP for the State submits that not only the present two FIRs but there are other five FIRs against the husband and wife and in all the cases the Sections and all the FIRs are under Section 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:15 420/406/120B/506/34 of IPC and and disclose a consistent pattern of similar allegations. He submits that the total amount alleged to have been cheated across all the FIRs is approximately ₹1 crore. He, therefore, prays that having regard to the conduct and antecedents of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that not only is the petitioner an accused in the present FIRs, but his wife is also a co-accused. The allegations pertain to cheating of ₹14 lakhs in FIR No. 190/2023 and ₹32 lakhs in FIR No. 138/2024. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that five other FIRs involving similar allegations under Sections 420/406/120B/506/34 IPC are pending against the petitioner and his wife. The multiplicity of FIRs disclosing a similar pattern of allegations, coupled with the substantial amount alleged to have been cheated, does not persuade this court to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 6, 2026/JYH/sd 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 11/08/2026 at 11:15:15