$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010076202026 + BAIL APPLN. 858/2026 ARMAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Divakar Upadhyaya, Adv. versus STATE THROUGH SHO SPECIAL CELL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. SI Sanjay Yadav, PS: Special Cell. Mr. Vijay Singh, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 107/2025, registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi, for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and was himself a victim of fraud. He is stated to be a labourer who handed over his identity documents to co-accused Suraj on the pretext of employment, without knowledge of the account being opened. It is further submitted that the chargesheet has been filed and investigation qua the 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21 applicant is complete. The main accused, Suraj and Sagar, are absconding and the trial cannot progress without their arrest. It is further stated that according to the status report, the applicant has remained in custody since 17.05.2025, for about sixteen months. 3. The submissions are opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended that the complainant was cheated by impersonation of Rs. 95,00,000/-, which has not been recovered and that the applicant was the prime beneficiary. It is submitted that more than ten bank accounts stand opened by him, figuring in 103 complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, that supplementary investigation into the money trail and the forensic examination is in progress and that his earlier applications stand dismissed. Reliance is placed on Ashok Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi1 and other connected matters. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 5. The prosecution case is that on 20.02.2025 and 21.02.2025, the complainant, the General Manager of AJ Refinery Private Limited, received messages from an unknown WhatsApp number impersonating the Director of the company, asking him to transfer Rs. 95,00,000/-. He transferred the amount to an account with Yes Bank, found to have been opened on 26.12.2024 jointly in the names of the applicant and co-accused Sagar, the registered mobile number having been issued on the identity of the applicant. The mobile phone seized from him revealed WhatsApp chats with co-accused Suraj concerning the supply and operation of bank accounts. The 1 MANU/DE/2924/2026 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21 chargesheet was filed on 11.07.2025. 6. The parameters governing the grant of bail have been succinctly laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,2 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Court is required to balance the nature of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of tampering with the evidence, the antecedents of the accused and the interests of justice. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,3 it has been observed that once the investigation is complete and the chargesheet filed, continued custody without compelling reason amounts to pre-trial punishment, read 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.” 7. The chargesheet stands filed and the investigation qua the applicant is complete. The supplementary investigation that remains pertains to the co- accused, the money trail and the forensic report, for none of which his custody is required and the co-accused being absconding, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. 8. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail, subject to his appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when called and to such other conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 2 (2010) 14 SCC 496 3 (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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21 9. The application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/p 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:21