$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 864/2026 PORTANRI PAKYNTEIN .....Applicant Through: Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ms. Marbiang Khougwin, Mr. Prang Newmai, Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advs. Versus THE STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP with Mr. Upasana Bakshi, Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Mr. Divya Bakshi and Mr. Gourav Singh, Advs. SI- Manish, PS: Special Cell CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 20.04.2026 CRL.M.A. 12059/2026 (For revival of present bail application) 1. By virtue of the present application, the applicant seeks revival of the present bail application, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.02.2026 in compliance of the order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1923/2026. 2. For the reasons stated therein, as also in view of order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1923/2026, the present application is allowed. 3. As such, the present application is disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 864/2026 4. The present application was disposed of by this Court vide order 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 dated 27.02.2026, however, an SLP was preferred against the said order and the same was set aside and remanded back by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1923/2026 vide order dated 13.04.2026, which reads as under:- “1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge is to the order dated 27.02.2026 by which, the bail application of the appellant has been rejected by the High Court. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind that the main co-accused has already been granted bail and that the High Court was swayed away by the fact that the bail application was moved before it within 5 days of its rejection by the Trial Court, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail, on its own merits. 5. The appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 5. As such, the present application is being taken up today for adjudication. 6. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.156/2025 dated 09.12.2025 under Sections 308/318(4)/319/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) at PS.: Special Cell, Delhi. 7. Issue notice. 8. Learned APP for the State accepts notice. He seeks, and is granted, a period of two weeks for filing the Status Report. 9. In response, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, learned counsel for 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 applicant submits that there is no need for the Status Report to be called for as he seeks disposal of the present application today itself on the strength of the aforesaid order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also on the basis of the undisputed position of facts and law involved. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP for the State submits that even though the reply filed by the prosecution qua the bail application made before the learned Trial Court, has not been adduced by the applicant with the present bail application, he is willing to proceed with submissions on instructions from the Investigating Officer (IO) present in the Court. He, however, submits that the charge-sheet has since been filed before the learned Trial Court in the interregnum and the applicant has not made any bail application before the learned Trial Court subsequent thereto. 11. Accordingly, this Court is proceeding to hear the learned counsel for the applicant as also learned APP for the State. 12. Briefly put, the applicant and the co-accused person (brother in law of the applicant) are involved in a digital scam/ fraud, whereby an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- was cheated from the complainant and Rs.12,00,000/- thereof was admittedly received in a Bank Account bearing no.923020040349550 (Bank Account) which is under the name of the applicant herein. Thereafter, a written application was made by the applicant before the incumbent bank on 09.12.2025 for freezing the said bank account and subsequent thereto, pursuant to the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS dated 30.12.2025, the applicant went to the Police Station for participating in the investigation on 09.02.2026, whereby he 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 was arrested. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old man belonging to a village in Meghalaya and he is technologically handicapped. More so, the applicant was never aware of any cyber fraud being executed from his Bank Account as the same is/ was being handled by the co-accused person, which is supported by the fact that the number linked to the said Bank Account belongs to the co-accused person. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that as apparent from the order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since the learned Trial Court had granted bail to the co-accused person vide order dated 20.02.2026 and, as the present FIR arises from the same alleged transaction, the present application is liable to be allowed on the ground of parity. He lastly submits that since there is a non-compliance of Section 35(5) of the BNSS, the same is ipso facto enough to grant bail as held by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar; (2014) 8 SCC 273 and State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand; (1977) 4 SCC 308. 15. Per contra, learned APP submits that the allegations involve serious economic offences/ cyber fraud, thereby causing substantial financial loss to the complainant. In fact, there are eight complaints of a similar nature against the same Bank Account involved in the present FIR. He lastly submits that as the Bank Account in which a part of the cheated amount has been received belongs to the applicant as also the cheated amount is yet to be recovered and also as the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation, the present application is liable to be dismissed, as there is possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and/ or absconding, if released on 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 16. Heard. Perused the documents on record as well. 17. Strangely, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to argue the present application based on the material on record without filing reply of the prosecution to bail application made before the learned Trial Court, not approaching the learned Trial Court first, whence the charge-sheet has since been filed, and also without according a chance to the learned APP for filing the Status Report. These cast a shadow of doubt/ suspicion in the mind of this Court. 18. The facts involved herein reveal that there are no qualms about the factum of the Bank Account in which money was transferred being in the name of the applicant and that it was belonging to him, as also that the same was credited with Rs.12,00,000/- (part of the cheated amount) as also that as per the NCRP Portal, there are as many as eight complaints against the same Bank Account involved herein. The same reflects involvement of the applicant in the whole transaction which is part of a definitive lead for the prosecution to conduct investigation. 19. Further, though it is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that he belongs to a village in Meghalaya, and that he is technologically handicapped, as also that his Bank Account is linked with the mobile number of the co-accused, however, despite all that, the very same applicant herein himself made a written request for freezing the said bank account on the very same day when the present FIR was registered. The same also raises a suspicion in the mind of this Court. 20. Regarding parity claimed by learned counsel for applicant with the co-accused person, admittedly, the role assigned to him is different from that of the applicant herein and he is not a recipient of the cheated amount. 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 Moreover, at the time of arresting the applicant, the applicant was duly served with the grounds of arrest dated 09.02.2026 with sufficient reasons to arrest the applicant therein, which are reproduced as under:- “(1) The above mentioned case was registered on the complaint lodged by Shubh Chander Sharda on National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal vide Ack No-30812250100612 wherein he complained that he had been cheated/ extorted of Rs. 55 lakh approx. by unknown person having WhatsApp numbers +91-7008002401, +91-8249826928 by impersonating as ATS Pune, Maharashtra Police Officials and digitally arresting the complainant. (2) You are Account Holder of Axis Bank Account No 923020040349550 in which cheated/ extorted amount of Rs 12.00,000 were received from the Victim's Bank Account. (3) There are a Total of 8 complaints against the above Bank Account on NCRP Portal. (4) You are not a permanent resident of Delhi. (5) Therefore, you are being arrested in the present case for further investigation.” 21. As such, the applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused person who has been granted bail. In any event, the applicant has to stand on his own legs and the facts involved, role assigned are all relevant factors which need to be considered at the time of granting regular bail to him. 22. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that the present FIR is regarding a cyber fraud/ digital scam and such offences present complex challenges, particularly due to their multifaceted nature, involving numerous transactions, accounts, entities, and actions across different timelines and digital platforms. All these require expending considerable 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30 time, effort, resources and money for the prosecution to recon the chain of events leading to the cyber fraud. A partial cheated amount has landed in the Bank Account of the applicant which requires unearthing. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Mittal vs. Ajay Pal Gupta, alias Sonu Chaudhary & Anr.: 2026 INSC 161, such actions ought to be dealt with by the Courts with a firm hand. 23. In light of the aforesaid factors, as also since the present FIR involves a multi-layered web of finical/ cyber fraud executed through bank accounts of various individuals, if the applicant is released, he may hamper the investigation and/ or there may be likelihood of tampering with the evidence and/ or since the applicant belongs to a village in Meghalaya, there is also a likelihood of his absconding. 24. Thus, no ground for granting bail to the applicant is made out, the present application is dismissed. 25. Needless to say, since the expressions of opinion, if any, are for the purposes of adjudicating the present application only, they shall have no bearing on the overall merits/ trial involved. SAURABH BANERJEE, J APRIL 20, 2026/aks 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 23/04/2026 at 12:10:30