BAIL APPLN. 3549/2026 1 $~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010401762026 + BAIL APPLN. 3549/2026 KANHAIYA KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anoop Kumar, Ms. Nikita Kumari, Advocates. versus THE GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP with SI Dharmendra. Mr. Sahil Ahuja with Ms.Palak Garg, Mr. Kuldeep, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 254/2025 dated 07.10.2025 registered at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, for commission of offence under Sections 408/420/34 IPC. 2. The abovesaid FIR has been got registered on the basis of complaint of Mr. Rajneesh Verma, Sole Proprietor of M/s Indotex whereby he claimed that his employees and other unknown accused persons had cheated the firm of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- approximately. 3. As per the allegations appearing in FIR, the applicant, Ranjan Bhandari and Mahesh were managing the Accounts Department of the Firm since 2017 and were responsible for day-to-day financial transactions. In February-March, 2024, Ranjan and Kanhaiya Kumar Jha (applicant herein) abruptly left the firm without serving any notice. The complainant thereafter noted certain discrepancies in the ledger accounts of the firm and an Internal 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 19/09/2026 at 10:59:21 BAIL APPLN. 3549/2026 2 Audit Investigation was carried which revealed that the accused persons were fraudulently transferring funds from Firm’s accounts into their personal/credit accounts. They had also, even, falsified the entries in the Firm's Creditors Ledger and diverted the funds in a dishonest manner. 4. During the investigation, accused-Mahesh was arrested on 25.07.2026. 5. Mahesh was permanent employee of the Firm and on his arrest, he revealed that he along with his two accused persons, including the applicant herein, had cheated complainant. He also branded the applicant herein as the one who had orchestrated the entire embezzlement. 6. The applicant is also claimed to be the head of the Accounts Department. Admittedly, his services had been provided as an outsourced employee by MDG Associates Private Limited but fact remains that even MDG Associates Private Limited confirmed that as Account and Finance Head, Kanhaiya Kumar Jha (applicant herein) was responsible for the funds planning, leading the Finance Department of M/s Indotex and was also responsible for the internal audits. 7. Learned Senior counsel for applicant submits that applicant was only an outsourced employee and Mahesh was a permanent employee. He asserts that applicant was never heading Accounts and Finance Department and that he had already resigned on 01.12.2023 and worked in the firm in question till 10.02.2024 and even thereafter, there are allegations of embezzlement which, in itself, indicates that he was not the one who was responsible for the alleged fraud, cheating or embezzlement. He also submits that he was not having any bank access. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also submits that co-accused-Ranjan Bhandari has already been granted interim anticipatory 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 19/09/2026 at 10:59:21 BAIL APPLN. 3549/2026 3 bail despite the fact that he was found in possession of cash deposit aggregating to Rs. 13,84,000/- . Fact, however, remains that such deposit was contemporaneous with the date of his marriage and keeping that particular aspect in the mind, this Court had granted him interim anticipatory bail. 9. As per status report placed on record, the Accounts Department was being headed and supervised by applicant herein. Learned APP for the State also submits that the petitioner was the one, who was having sole access to the bank account of the complainant and was responsible for the illegal transfer and embezzlement in question. He also submits that despite service of notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, he failed to join the investigation. He submits that though the account statements of his bank accounts have now been provided but in order to reach the money trail, his custodial interrogation would be imperative. 10. Keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also of the considered opinion that in order to unearth the conspiracy and to reach the embezzled money, the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be needed. 11. Application, therefore, stands dismissed. MANOJ JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/sw/sk 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 19/09/2026 at 10:59:21