$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010394812026 + BAIL APPLN. 3484/2026 PONNALLA BHASKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shannu Baghel and Ms. Sonam Tomar, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP, with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. SI Niranjan Kumar, P.S. EOW. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 483 OF Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), the applicant is seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 90/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at P.S. Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last three years. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. He further submits that the other co-accused has already been granted bail in 2023 and, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be granted bail. 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 06/10/2026 at 11:29:40 4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the regular bail application of the petitioner was previously dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in January 2026 and, thereafter, there has been no change in circumstances, except that the FSL report has now come on record. 5. She further submits that an amount of approximately Rs. 2,75,00,000/- has been received in the petitioner's bank account from the complainant and the other victim. She further submits that there are five other cases of a similar nature pending against the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be granted bail. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. Though the complainant himself has stated that he has duped other victims, the fact remains that, on the pretext of securing jobs in the Railways, the petitioner, along with the other co-accused persons, allegedly duped around 23 victims, and an amount of approximately Rs. 2,75,00,000/- was directly received in the petitioner's bank account. 8. Though the petitioner is stated to be on bail in all the other five cases, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that, while enjoying the liberty of bail granted in those cases, he is alleged to have again committed a similar offence. 9. No ground for bail. The application is dismissed. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/prg/yt 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 06/10/2026 at 11:29:40