$~3 & 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1961/2025 RAGHUNATH SAHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Dagar and Mr. Ujjwal Dahiya, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Mohit.

Mr. R.K. Padhi, Advocate for complainant.

+ BAIL APPLN. 2278/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18167/2025 BONI SAHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Dagar and Mr. Ujjwal Dahiya, Advocates.

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Mohit.

Mr. R.K. Padhi, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicants seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 122/2023 of Police Station Begumpur for offence under Section D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2aCps6cD e n f. b oO iN a 53 r g =4 s t i . U9 :4 a i e t 0G tc 6 aR l . : a f 2 N = I 2 l 2 8 T R l C 0I c u 0 0 y I N oO = S 6 m 2 c s, d H 8fF b 6 i b o be g 4 d . D K 4 = 0 =e 0 n 2A 8 4 E H r 1 1 e e= 3 . L T d 1 0 Id e G H5 d H 0 d 2 e b d 3 H I0 P 8 6 , 1 y 4C e0 A 8 0 7 C 3 8 I3 G 9 4L D : O 5 6 5 , b I0 I A f 7 R s 9 U - 2 2 9 t 9 I : 7 R = 7 c 1 S 7 6 0 4 H aT 6 6 D4 4 8 7 2 O - e5 K 7 7 7 0 6 l1 AF 6 9 h b 7 c e 3 6 T a i ' 2D 0 ,c 8c 5 H f 4 E 0 6c, f P 5 L ' a5 8 AH c ,f 00 o LI, 17 I u A e eb =4 25 Ha 6d fI f eG 1a c 5, H 4 5 5 7 5 0 6 9 9 9

420/468/471/34 IPC.

1.1 These anticipatory bail applications came up for the first hearing on 21.05.2025 and 01.07.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. By way of order dated 01.07.2025, the predecessor bench granted interim protection to the accused/applicant Boni Saha from arrest, which order continued on date to date basis before different benches. The accused/applicant Raghunath Saha was not granted any interim protection but the applications continued to be taken up together by different benches and a common order was being passed extending the interim protection. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, these applications also were transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first effective hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicants and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Mohit. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto .

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that the main accused Gopal Saha cheated the complainant de facto by collecting approximately Rs.41,00,000/- on the assurance to get him a job and visa in Canada, but despite collecting money, the accused Gopal Saha did not fulfil his promise. The role ascribed to the present accused/applicants is that the accused/applicant Raghunath Saha is brother-in-law of Gopal Saha and the accused/applicant Boni Saha is daughter of Raghunath Saha. According to prosecution, the main accused Gopal Saha misrepresented before the complainant de facto that Raghunath Saha is an influential person with links D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2ea7s1fD8 e ,c. 0 5 iN a 5 0 r g o4 4 5 t i . 1 :4 u a i 5 e 7 7 tc e l .5 : = a 6 0 2 N = 22 6 l 3 9 H 0I u 60 y 9 N 8 9 = I f m 2 Ga , 6a s,8 6 f p io b, H b 3 g 4 .c o = 0 4 e 90 n C n s 4 0 H r 61 e t = O = . f 2d a 0 Id 8 G G d Ul cd 2 0 C b 3 H 6 I R 8 cR1 o y e f T b 8 I b 7 C d 8 S G 9 d : O4 O e6 H5 b I 2 8 =7 R F 9 U 2 eK 3 9 I 1 : D R7 0 S e 5 A 61 H aT 5 e dE T 40 7 6 L 4 O H- 50 K 7 0 0 H3 10 P AFb 4 7 5I e3 A , T 0 ' 2D Cf 0 c, H 9 L 2 f 4 Is E 0 6 I D7 c P t A 5 L ' 5 = 4 6 AH c - f 8 2 D 0 LI 7 6 , 7e I A 9 ec blh a4 6 5 c i a 5 ,d c f f in Canadian High Commission, where accused Boni Saha is employed.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicants submits that at the time of the alleged offence, Boni Saha was aged hardly 17 years and it cannot be believed that she was employed in the Canadian High Commission. It is submitted by learned counsel that the present