Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused Posing as Politician Relative in Cheating Case - 2025-09-01

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused Posing as Politician Relative in Cheating Case

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, has dismissed a regular bail application filed by an accused involved in an elaborate multi-crore tender scam. The accused, who allegedly masqueraded as the nephew of a Union Home Minister to defraud a businessman, remains in custody as the trial proceedings continue.

Deceptive Promise of a Multi-Crore Government Tender

The prosecution alleges that in June 2020, the accused, introducing himself as "Ajay Shah," manipulated the complainant into believing he could secure a Rs 90 crore tender for the renovation of the President’s Estate. By leveraging fake credentials, including the presence of "inspecting officers" and the display of fraudulent demand drafts, the accused reportedly extracted Rs 3.90 crore from the complainant. The scheme allegedly grew in scope, with the accused later inflating the tender value to Rs 127 crore.

The Prosecution’s Stance on Pending Charges

Representing the State, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) strongly opposed the bail plea. The prosecution highlighted that the trial court is currently evaluating the addition of charges under Sections 467 , 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). These sections, relating to forgery and punishable by life imprisonment, significantly heighten the severity of the case. Furthermore, the prosecution accused the applicant of deliberately protracting the trial by engaging in lengthy, unproductive cross-examinations of witnesses.

Judicial Reasoning and the Denial of Liberty

Justice Kathpalia noted that the accused’s previous history of settling similar cheating cases using funds allegedly derived from the present scam weighed heavily against him. While the defense argued that the four-year undertrial detention and the bail granted to a co-accused, Raj Kumar Nayyar, entitled the applicant to relief, the Court found the applicant's role to be distinct and the evidence of his deception compelling.

Key Observations

• "Considering the nature and expanse of the allegations against the accused/applicant coupled with the pending consideration of amendment in charge... at this stage, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail."
• "As per [the status report], the accused/applicant was involved in another similar case of cheating, which he settled by paying Rs. 75 lakhs to the complainant."
• "It is the accused/applicant, who is protracting the trial and has taken as many as 05 dates to continue cross-examination of just one witness."

Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the bail application. This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that individuals accused of grave economic offenses involving systemic forgery do not evade the legal process through procedural delays. The decision reaffirms that the weight of evidence and the gravity of potential charges, particularly those involving life imprisonment, remain primary considerations when evaluating bail petitions in high-stakes criminal matters.