##PAGE1##

$~15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 547/2025, CRL.M.A. 38456-38457/2025

SANTOSH SONI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajeev Shukla, Mr. Shiv Lal

Kannaujiya, Mr. Anand Soni and

Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates with

Petitioner.

versus

THE STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State

with SI Rahul, PS-EOW.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. The Petitioner is implicated in FIR No. 19/2023 dated 2^nd March,

2023, registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, under Sections

420/409/477A/380/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC”

2. The Petitioner was granted bail by the Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-

02, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, vide order dated 26^th

November, 2025. While granting bail, the Court examined various factors

supporting the Petitioner’s entitlement to bail, as recorded in paragraph 18

of the impugned order. Simultaneously, the Court directed the Petitioner to

deposit INR 46 lakhs within 15 days of his release, INR 50 lakhs on or

before 20^th January, 2026, and a further INR 50 lakhs on or before 20^th

CRL.REV.P. 547/2025 Page 1 of 4

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 19/01/2026 at 21:51:09

February, 2026, in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts (‘FDRs’). The said

direction to deposit amounts, therefore, constitutes an essential condition of

bail.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the bail order was made

available to him at around 4:00 PM on the date it was passed. He contends

that, at that time, he was not aware whether the Petitioner would be able to

comply with the condition imposed by the Court. Nonetheless, bail bonds

were furnished, resulting in the Petitioner’s release from custody.

Subsequently, an application seeking deletion of the said condition was filed

before the same Court, which was later withdrawn.

4. The Petitioner, left with no alternative, has filed the present revision

petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023², seeking deletion of the said condition. It is argued

that the Petitioner neither volunteered to make any deposit nor furnished any

undertaking before the Court agreeing to such deposit. Nonetheless, counsel

for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is agreeable to the matter being

remanded, provided he is not directed to surrender till such time the bail

application is reheard and decided.

5. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State, on instructions from Investigating

Officer, submits that the other co-accused, who have been granted bail, are

subject to similar conditions and have already deposited the requisite

amounts. It is further contended that the Petitioner had volunteered to make

such a deposit and, having secured bail, cannot now be permitted to resile

from the undertaking allegedly given. In response, counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the Petitioner is not the main accused and that no such

CRL.REV.P. 547/2025 Page 2 of 4

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 19/01/2026 at 21:51:09

undertaking was ever given.

6. This Court has perused the impugned bail order. While the order

reflects consideration of several aspects relevant to the grant of bail, as noted

in paragraph 18, it also imposes a substantial condition requiring deposits. In

this context, the Supreme Court, in a recent decision in Gajanan Dattatray

Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571., has examined the legality of

bail orders based on undertakings by accused persons to make monetary

deposits. The Supreme Court has categorically held that Trial Courts and

High Courts should not grant bail on the basis of any undertaking or

assurance by an accused