$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4625/2025 JAGDISH KISHORE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmad, Advocate versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Sunil Gaur, PS Safdarjung Enclave Mr. Vikas Tomar, counsel for complainant de facto CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.259/2025 of Police Station Safdarjung Enclave for offence under Section

316(4)/318(4)/344 BNS.

2. Despite last order, status report has not been filed. The IO/SI Sunil Gaur admits that the accused/applicant joined investigation in furtherance of last order, but also submits that the accused/applicant did not cooperate in the interrogation.

BAIL APPLN. 4625/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4a fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -

Digitally Signed KATHPALIA7 s d e 0 1 r 4 5 ia 7 5 l 6 7 N 3 0 u 8 9 m , 9 p 6 b o b e s 4 r t = 0 a d f l 8 C 3 0 o e c d 8 b e 6 d = 7 2 9 1 e 6 1 e 4 0 e 5 0 6 1 0 0 e 3 4 c , 0 4 s 2 t 5 = c c D 4 0 8 7 e 7 b lh 9 5 i, By:NEETU N NAIR 6 D 5 a f te 8 : 0 2 1 0 e 2 2 6 6 .0 fa 3 , . c 1 n 0 = 1 G 7 I : R 19 IS :0 H 0 K - A 0 T 7 H '0 P 0 A ' LIA

3. The decision of the State not to file status report conveys that they are not seriously interested in opposing the present anticipatory bail application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State and learned counsel for complainant de facto

5. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that while working as a Finance Officer with an NGO, he embezzled money by preparing fake bills/invoices/vouchers and by altering and deleting the entries from the Tally system in the computers of the NGO. It is also alleged that the accused/applicant destroyed certain documents to conceal his fraud and some of those documents were retrieved from the waste bin.

6. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the money transferred into his account was on directions of the complainant de facto for being used in the activities of the NGO and the same was done by him.

7. Learned APP for State submits that the offence alleged against the accused/applicant being a serious one, it is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

7.1 However, on instructions of IO, it is also stated by learned APP for State that the IO has not collected any bills/invoices/vouchers which are alleged to be fake. It is also admitted by learned APP for State that the IO has not even seized the hard disk of the computers of the complainant de facto till date for forensic analysis regarding the alleged alterations done in the Tally system. It is also admitted by the IO that the complainant de facto BAIL APPLN. 4625/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2 5 . 5 N 5 6 . : 4 9 c . a 2 = f 0 I 3 N = 9 , 8 6 o 4 2 = 0 c H 1 6 d f I b G d 4 H 8 8 8 C 3 9 O 5 b d U 2 4 R 7 3 a T 5 7 O f 7 9 F b 7 2 6 D f 2 E 6 6 L 5 c H f a I c , c e a 4 , a fec4 ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIAp se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 1 = 1 d 0 3 0 e 0 8 3 6 , 7 st 9 = 6 D 4 e 5 l 1 h e i, c 45c07b5d155 Digitally Signed 7 fa 0 , 9 c 9 n 6 = b G 4 I 0 R f I 8 SH 0c K b A d T 2 H ee P e A 6 L 0 IA 4 02c487965f801e26 By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2026.03.10 17:18:50 -07'00'

never delivered to him, the documents allegedly retrieved by the complainant de facto from waste bin of their office.

8. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also admits that neither any document nor the hard disks of the computers of the NGO were delivered by them to the IO for investigation.

8.1 As regards the money allegedly embezzled by the accused/applicant, it is submitted by learned counse