* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: February 10, 2026 % Pronounced on: March 10, 2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4622/2025 AMIT BHANDARI ....Applicant Through: Ms. Pallavi Bhatt & Mr. Akhilesh K.

Singh, Advocates.

Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with Mr. Bhuman Bansal, Advocate Ms. Rachna Maheshwari and Ms. Mannu Bansal Advocates for complainant. Insp. Jaiveer Singh, PS:

EOW.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’, the applicant, namely Amit Bhandari seeks grant of regular bail in proceeding arising out of FIR No.129/2024 dated 01.11.2024 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 65/66 of the IT Act.

2. Succinctly put, an FIR was registered against the applicant and co- accused Vinay Negi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘co-accused on a complaint of Shri Jackie Varma, authorised representative of M/s. KNAB Finance Advisors Pvt. Ltd, Hereinafter referred to as ‘company, a fintech based digital lending platform. During internal examination of the company, it was discovered that though the company’s records showed successful disbursement of loans to its Clients, the actual borrowers had not received the sanctioned amounts, allegedly as the co-accused, who had joined the company as Assistant Manager (operations) and was entrusted with full access to the company’s Loan Management System, misused his access to forge disbursement-related emails, manipulated beneficiaries’ bank account details, and diverted company funds amounting to Rs.3,23,00,000/- into his personal bank accounts as well as to the bank account of the applicant.

3. Investigation revealed that huge sums of Rs.1,57,20,629/- and Rs.98,30,000/- were fraudulently transferred from the company’s accounts to SBI and Kotak Mahindra Bank accounts of the co-accused respectively, and a sum of Rs.68,05,000/- was also transferred to applicant’s AU Small Finance Bank account, who then transferred it to the co-accused’s Bank of Baroda account after deducting a marginal amount. Moreover, the applicant also received a sum of around Rs.20,000/- directly from the personal account of the co-accused.

4. The co-accused, upon arrest on 08.05.2025, in his disclosure statement stated that he paid to the applicant a sum of around Rs.17 lakhs to Rs.19 lakhs for his involvement. This led to arrest of the applicant on 16.05.2025.

5. In these facts, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 16.05.2025; the investigation has already been concluded; the chargesheet has also been filed, the applicant is a person with clean antecedents; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged offence and only acted under instructions of the co-accused, his cousin brother; the applicant was not aware of the illegal activities of the co- accused. In view of above, custody of the applicant would serve no purpose, more so, whence the prosecution case against the applicant rests entirely on documentary evidence.

6. Even otherwise, learned counsel submitted that the entire amount that was credited into the account of the applicant was immediately/ promptly transferred to the account of the co-accused, after deducting of loan amount given by the applicant to him which clearly demonstrates that the applicant merely acted as a passive conduit and not as an active participant in the alleged fraudulent scheme. The disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in law, was also belied being incorrect as there was no proof or money trail to substantiate the allegation.

7. Per contra, learned APP for State relying upon the Status Report submitted that both applic