$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1210/2026 & CRL.M.A. 4868/2026 SANTANU BHATTACHARJEE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshya, Advocate.

versus CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rajni Gupta, SPP CBI.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026

1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks modification of conditions of bail imposed by the Special Court on 27.11.2025 in Crl.Rev.No. 47/2025, in connection with FIR No. RC-0482024S0013/2024, registered at CBI, SC-I, New Delhi, under Sections 170/419/420/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Bail was granted to the petitioner, first by order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the Magistrate’s Court, upon a condition of furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, with one local surety of Delhi and one local surety of Kolkata, having permanent abodes.

3. On an application seeking modification of the said condition, the Special Court, vide order dated 27.11.2025, modified the condition with the following observations:

“In view of the facts that the applicant has stated that despite order dated 18.10.2025 he was unable to furnish surety bonds as directed by the Ld. Trial Court but he is ready to furnish at least one local surety of Rs.30,000/-, the application is allowed to the extent that he shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount with the condition of one local surety from Delhi and other surety can be from anywhere. The other conditions of the bail as directed in paragraph-9 of the order dated 18.10.2025 of Ld. Trial Court shall remain unchanged.”

[Emphasis supplied]

4. The petitioner failing to comply with the said condition, was not released, and thereafter approached this Court in CRL.M.C. 9323/2025, seeking a further modification to the said condition. He stated that he was not able to arrange a local surety from Delhi. This Court, vide order dated 24.12.2025, granted him time to do so, while releasing him for the interim, upon furnishing cash surety, in the following terms:

“3. After some submissions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that he may be given an interim release so that he can come out and make arrangement of Surety. Submissions heard.

4. Considering that the Bail Order was originally made on 18.10.2025 and the Surety amount was reduced vide Order dated 27.11.2025, despite which the Petitioner is not able to arrange a Surety, the impugned Order dated 27.11.2025 is modified to the extent that the Petitioner be released forthwith in terms of Order dated 27.11.2025 on furnishing of cash Surety on the condition that he shall appear before the learned Trial Court and furnish the Surety in terms of Order dated 27.11.2025 within 04 weeks.

[Emphasis supplied]

5. The petitioner has now approached this Court again, seeking a further modification of the said condition, as he states that he was released on 03.01.2026, upon furnishing of cash surety, but has not been able to arrange a local surety from Delhi.

6. As the time granted by this Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 has already lapsed, Mr. Akshya, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application, after surrendering before the Special Court.

7. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.

8. Needless to say, it is open to the petitioner to place all the facts before the Special Court, and it is for the Special Court to consider the appropriate conditions which may be imposed, if it is inclined to grant bail.

9. Pending application is also disposed of.

PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 12, 2026 SS/AD/