IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on:19.12.2025

Judgment reserved on: 06.12.2025

+ CRL.M.C. 1272/2022

NEELAM MITTAL ..... Petitioner

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Surender Singh Hooda and Mr. Nishi

Kant Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State with SI

Naveen Gurjar, PS Special Staff/South Distt. Mr. Pratap Singh, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Navneet Sharma and Mr. Sukhmandeep,

Advocates for R-2.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 15.02.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), South East, Saket Court,

Delhi whereby the learned MM, in a surrender-cum-bail application granted bail to Respondent No. 2 in terms of Section 437 of the CrPC. 2. Briefly stated, FIR No. 76/2021 dated 11.03.2021 was registered at Police Station Greater Kailash on a complaint given by one SK Mittal for the offences under Sections 420/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The complainant is stated to be engaged in the business of gold jewellery. It is alleged that in October, 2020 one Pradeep came to the office of the complainant and introduced himself as a broker in the jewellery business and represented that he knew many reputed jewelers who could buy jewellery from the complainant on wholesale basis. It is alleged that the said Pardeep also introduced the complainant to Suraj Soni, Rohit and Respondent No. 2 claiming that Suraj Soni and Rohit Kumar were joint owners of M/s. S.R. Jewellers and Respondent No. 2 was their Manager. It is alleged that on the first meeting, the said Suraj Soni and Rohit Kumar demanded two kilogram of gold jewellery, however, the complainant refused to do so considering that the same was a huge quantity.

3. It is alleged that thereafter the complainant gave small quantity of gold jewellery against which requisite payments were made either in cash or in gold within the prescribed time in order to gain the trust of the complainant. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, introduced the complainant to one Prakash (brother-in-law of Rohit) who claimed to be doing business of jewellery under the name of BP Jewellers. The complainant was also allegedly introduced to one Baljeet Singh stated to be the partner of M/s. B.P. Jewellers. It is alleged that the said persons as well initially took small quantity of gold jewellery and paid the due amount in time. It is alleged that thereafter, Respondent No. 2 took the manager of the complainant to the office of Gulshan Kumar Singh to confirm that the said Gulshan Kumar was a big seller who used to buy 4-5 kg of gold per week. It is alleged that thereafter Respondent No. 2 induced the complainant to sell gold to the said Gulshan Kumar by offering higher rates than one offered by SR Jewellers. It is alleged that based on the said inducement by Respondent No.2, the complainant supplied 3402.22 grams of 22 carat gold on two occasions on credit basis aggregating to a sum of ₹1.7 crores. It is alleged that against the first consignment payment was duly made to the complainant, however, thereafter the balance payment was not made to the complainant. The same led to the registration of the FIR.

4. By the order dated 31.01.2022, the learned ASJ dismissed the pre-arrest bail preferred by Respondent No. 2 noting that as per the version of the Investigating Officer, Respondent No. 2 was the main associate of the accused persons. It was noted that co-accused persons Gulshan Singh and Baljeet Singh were declared proclaimed offenders on 09.11.2021 which indicated that they were fleeing from justice. It was further noted that considering the allegations, there appeared to be a criminal conspiracy between Respondent No. 2 and