$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010386062026 + BAIL APPLN. 3420/2026 MITHILESH KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate along with WSI Sanch, PS Dwarka South. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Ms. Santha Smruthi, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeking pre-arrest bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 150/2026 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 at P.S. Dwarka South. 2. This Court, vide a detailed order dated 19th August, 2026, after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the following directions: 1 “BNSS” 2 “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 30/09/2026 at 11:03:58 “1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 150/2026 dated 16.06.2026, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”] [“subject FIR”]. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2/complainant. 3. The petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, wherein he was granted interim protection from arrest vide order dated 30.06.2026. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.08.2026, the learned Sessions Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. 4. The replies filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Sessions Court indicate that the allegations against the petitioner are in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the IPC. 5. It is evident from the material on record that the complainant’s case is that the petitioner, who is the director of M/s Edgerise Technologies Pvt. Ltd., alongwith the other persons, induced the complainant to supply goods on the basis of false assurances and fabricated business records. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque dated 17.09.2022 for a sum of Rs. 40,65,128/- to the complainant, drawn on the bank account of the said company. The said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks, “Drawer’s authority to operate account not received”. The complainant, therefore, alleges that he was induced to supply goods to the company on credit on the basis of false representations and fabricated contracts and work orders purportedly issued by reputed companies. 7. The complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner on 18.02.2023. However, the subject FIR came to be registered pursuant to a complaint dated 16.06.2026. The FIR itself records that the cheque in question, which was allegedly issued to the complainant, was dated 17.09.2022. 8. The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Court, inter alia, on the ground of non-cooperation 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 30/09/2026 at 11:03:58 with the investigation, which is disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he has duly furnished all the information sought by the Investigating Officer and remains willing to provide any further information or assistance that may be required in the course of the investigation. 9. The allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust arise out of a business transaction involving the supply of goods, in respect of which the complainant alleges that payment remains outstanding. While the merits of these allegations are yet to be investigated, the Court, at this stage, is required to balance the need for a fair and effective investigation with the petitioner’s right to personal liberty. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and particularly considering that the allegations against the petitioner relate to transactions dating back nearly four years prior to the complaint, I am of the view that it would be appropriate, at this stage, to protect the petitioner’s personal liberty. 10. In my view, the rival assertions regarding the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer tomorrow, i.e. 20.08.2026 at 04:00 P.M. The Investigating Officer shall provide the petitioner with a written questionnaire and record his responses thereto in writing. The Investigating Officer shall also be at liberty to supplement the written questionnaire with such oral questions as may be considered necessary. 11. Mr. Bhalendu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, assures the Court that the petitioner shall duly cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law, and shall appear before the Investigating Officer tomorrow, as directed, and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 12. It is made clear that any failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the conditions subject to which interim protection is granted may compel the Court to revoke such protection. 13. List on 14.09.2026.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Applicant has joined the investigation before the Investigating Officer. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the parties have perhaps arrived at a settlement before the Investigating Officer. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:03:58 4. Be that as it may, the Applicant has joined the investigation. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required at this stage. Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant shall continue to cooperate with the investigation as and when required. 5. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the provision of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC is rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees personal liberty. Section 438 aims at protecting the personal liberty of an individual, who, at the time of seeking pre-arrest bail, has not been convicted of the alleged offence and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.3 6. In view of the above, and having regard to the circumstances already noted in the order dated 19th August, 2026, this Court considers it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to the Applicant. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The Applicant, in the event of arrest, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of INR 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the following conditions: a. The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when directed by the IO; b. The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of the country without informing the IO/ SHO concerned; c. The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; 3 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 694. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:03:58 d. The Applicant shall give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times; 8. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 9. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 10. The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/ab 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 30/09/2026 at 11:03:58