$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010827272025 + BAIL APPLN. 4081/2025 & CRL.M.A. 17313/2026, CRL.M.A. 17314/2026 MANISH MOHAN SHETTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr Bibek Tripathi, Mr Ajay Kumar Shrivastav, Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari and Mr Manoj Kumar versus STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP with Ms. Anushka Vashisht, Mr. Saurabh Sharma and Mr. Mayank Chauhan, Advs. Insp. Kamal Kishor, PS EOW Inspr Ashwani, PS GTB Enclave Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta, Mr. Pranshul Kulshreshtha, ms. Adyasha Patra, Ms. Mansi Yadav, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 22.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 223/2020 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last around one year and he has no role to play in the entire transaction and the main beneficiary of the cheated amount, i.e., Ajay Harinath Singh, has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court, whereas the petitioner is languishing in jail. He further submits that the petitioner joined the Company in October 2018, after the Investment Agreement dated 29.06.2018 was already executed, and subsequently, he was made a Director in October 2019, whereas the main co-accused was holding 99.9% equity and was the sole authorised signatory of the accused companies and was in control of the financial transactions. 4. He further submits that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he received a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in his account, but he has already paid that amount to the co-accused Ajay Harinath Singh, as he was only an employee of his company. He submits that the said amount was a business loan and the repayment thereof is supported by bank transactions and email communications. He further submits that the other amounts credited into his account were towards his salary and professional expenses. He submits that the petitioner had already resigned from the Company on 21.10.2020, and seeks parity with the co-accused and submits that he be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant submit that the petitioner was not merely an employee but was the General Manager (Legal) of the accused Company and was subsequently appointed as a Director. It is submitted that the petitioner also signed as General Manager in the complaint which was filed in Jharkhand and was involved in the affairs of the accused Company. 6. He further submits that the accused persons prepared forged and 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54 fabricated documents and showed an investment of Rs.50 crores in the complainant Company and, on the basis of these forged documents, obtained an arbitral award of approximately Rs.30 crores in their favour. It is submitted that pursuant to the said arbitral award, the complainant Company transferred amounts of Rs.10 crores and Rs.5 crores on 11.02.2020 and a further amount of Rs.3 crores on 14.02.2020, totalling Rs.18 crores. 7. He further submits that not only Rs.50,00,000/- but around Rs.1 crore 4 lakhs were credited in the account of the petitioner, out of which he claims that Rs.50,00,000/- was received as a loan, whereas his Company equity is only Rs.10,00,000/-. He further submits that not only the accused persons prepared and forged the Investment Agreement but also fraudulently obtained an arbitral award of Rs.30 crores in their favour. It is submitted that the FSL report has also confirmed the forgery in respect of the documents relied upon in the arbitral proceedings. 8. The Court has heard both the parties. 9. As per the prosecution, the complainant Company, Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., had alleged that the accused persons had relied upon a forged Investment Agreement and other documents in the arbitral proceedings and had obtained an arbitral award in their favour, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.18 crores was transferred from the complainant Company. The investigation further revealed that the Investment Agreement and other documents relied upon in the said proceedings were allegedly forged. 10. The role attributed to the present petitioner as per the status report filed by the State is as under: “7. That the role of the present applicant Manish Mohan Shetty has been clearly established during 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54 investigation. He was appointed as a Director of the accused company on 25.10.2019 and continued till 21.10.2020, which covers the period of the fraudulent transactions. Further, during search of his premises, an Offer-cum-Appointment Letter was recovered, which shows that he had been associated with the accused company since 01.10.2018 as General Manager (Legal Department). This clearly proves that he was actively associated with and managing the affairs of the company prior to becoming its Director. 8. That the investigation has further revealed that the applicant/accused Manish Mohan Shetty is a direct beneficiary of the cheated amount. A sum of approximately Rs. 1.04 crore was transferred to his personal Axis Bank account bearing No. 219010100242950 from the bank accounts of Darwin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Darwin Car- Cab Pvt. Ltd., both of which had received the cheated amount from M/s Diehman Rea-IT Trade Pvt. Ltd. This establishes the direct monetary benefit derived by the applicant from the proceeds of crime. 9. That the applicant also got lodged FIR No. 72/2019 U/s 420/34 IPC at PS Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, on behalf of the accused company against the present complainant company M/s Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., alleging cheating of Rs. 5 crores. The said FIR was later closed due to non-cooperation of the complainant, indicating that the applicant deliberately filed false criminal proceedings with mala fide intention to exert pressure on the complainant and to lend credibility to the forged arbitration proceedings.” 11. Not only the petitioner was the Director of the accused Company during the period when the alleged forged documents were used and the arbitral 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54 award was obtained, the prosecution has also attributed to him a specific role in relation to the affairs of the Company and the amounts credited into his personal bank account. The defence of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was a loan and that the remaining amount represented salary and professional expenses would require consideration on the basis of the evidence during trial. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the pendency of SLP (C) No. 4615/2020, titled Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhman REA- IT Trade Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, arising out of the same Investment Agreement and arbitral proceedings. However, the present FIR concerns allegations of cheating, forgery, use of forged documents and conspiracy and the pendency of the said proceedings, by itself, would not conclude the criminal allegations in the present case. 13. The contention regarding parity with co-accused Ajay Harinath Singh also cannot be considered in isolation, as the role attributed to each accused and the material collected against them are required to be considered separately. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner and the material collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 16. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54 17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/b/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 24/09/2026 at 10:44:54