Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
DEEPAK DHARAMVEER SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-78/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Anand, Eshaan Seth, Pawan Yadav, Radha
For the Respondents: Priyanka Dalal, Amit Chadha, Atin Chadha, Munisha Chadha, Harjas Singh, Dhruv Tomar, A. Singh, Rekha Yadav, Ankush

Anticipatory bail may be denied when the applicant has received substantial proceeds from alleged fraud, has evaded investigation despite notice, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the truth behind a syndicate using fake bills.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Anticipatory bail - Factors for denial - Custodial interrogation - Evasion of investigation - Dishonest intention - The court held that where the applicant has received substantial amounts from co-accused, was evading investigation despite knowledge of notices, and the allegations indicate a syndicate using fake bills, custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the truth. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 22)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Principles - Reference to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar: (2014) 8 SCC 273 - The court noted that although the investigating agency should be mindful of such directions, the applicant’s conduct of remaining elusive despite notice and his subsequent arrest in another case weighed against grant of pre-arrest bail. (Paras 5, 18)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 41-A - Notice - Non-compliance - Effect - The applicant responded to one notice but failed to participate in investigation after release from custody, justifying issuance of non-bailable warrants. (Para 18)

(D) State (Represented by CBI) v. Anil Sharma: (1997) 7 SCC 187 - Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 66/2023 registered under Sections 406/420/120B IPC. The complainant, a logistics company, alleged that the applicant and his co-accused, acting as a syndicate, induced the complainant to provide transport services worth Rs. 19.41 crores but paid only Rs. 6.85 crores, using fake bills and non-existent destinations. The applicant claimed he was a victim and had informed the complainant about the co-accused’s dishonesty. He admitted receiving substantial amounts from co-accused but alleged the transfers were without his knowledge. He was evading investigation despite notices, and was later arrested in another case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had received huge sums (over Rs. 11 crores) from co-accused, his explanation about co-accused controlling his accounts was not credible, and he failed to participate in investigation after release from custody in another matter. The allegations of fake bills and a dishonest scheme indicated the need for custodial interrogation. The court dismissed the bail application.

Issues: 1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of allegations and his conduct. 2. Whether the dispute was merely civil in nature or involved criminal intent. 3. Whether custodial interrogation was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-arrest bail should not be granted when the applicant has received substantial benefits from co-accused, has evaded investigation, and the allegations involve sophisticated fraud with fake documents, as custodial interrogation is essential for a thorough investigation.

Result: Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT

MANOJ JAIN, J

1. Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 66/2023 dated 05.09.2023 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for commission of offences under Sections 406/420/120B IPC.

2. Mr. Rajesh Anand, learned Counsel for applicant submits that even a cursory look over the averments appearing in FIR would indicate that the dispute is, merely, civil in nature. He submits that there were some independent transactions between him and complaint and some payment was outstanding from his side but supplements that he has no concern with other

transactions between complaint and his co-accused, who are absconding. He submits that since applicant is not privy to any such contract which his co-accused had with complainant, he is not liable to make any payment, on their behalf, to complainant.

3. Mr. Anand, learned Counsel claims that applicant is victim of circumstances and has been cheated at the hands of his co-accused. It is supplemented that he himself had given information to the complainant about the cheating committed by such co-accused and without any rhyme or reason, his name has been dragged in the matter. He submits that there is nothing to indicate that there was dishonest inducement at inception or for that matter any entrustment to applicant or misappropriation by applicant.

4. According to him, his bills were stolen away by co-accused and have been misused. He states that substantial amount of Rs. 2.26 crores was transferred to his account by co-accused persons and such transactions were online i.e. through banking channels and without his knowledge and consent and, therefore, he himself is victim of the financial mess, created by his co- accused who, at one point of time, were known to him. He states that applicant had, even, transferred said amount to complainant company.

5. It is stated that accused remained in judicial custody for around one year i.e. from 19.12.2023 to 24.12.2024 in one another case and no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. or any other process was ever received by him and, therefore, learned Trial Court should not have been issued any warrants and should not have taken any step towards declaring him proclaimed person. Moreover, offences in question relate to Section 406/420/120-B IPC which invite maximum sentence of seven years and, therefore, the investigating agency was required to be mindful of the specific directions

contained in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI : (2022)10 SCC 51 as well as Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar : (2014) 8 SCC 273.

6. It is claimed that applicant has deep roots in the society and is not a flight risk. Moreover, keeping in mind the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is, even otherwise, not warranted and since he is ready and willing to join the investigation, it is a fit case where anticipatory bail should be granted to him.

7. Admittedly, applicant is already involved in various other matters and except for one recent matter, he is on bail. During the pendency of the present application, applicant has been arrested in one another case and is presently lodged in jail in Mumbai. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State submits that Trial Court has already issued production warrants and there is every likelihood of it’s execution, which would render the present application infructuous.

8. The application has been vehemently opposed by learned Addl. P.P. for State as well as learned Senior Counsel for complainant.

9. A complaint was lodged by the complainant before the concerned Magisterial Court. Complainant also prayed for investigation by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. FIR has been registered on the basis of direction given by the jurisdictional Court.

10. FIR is exhaustive in nature.

11. Briefly stated, complainant company i.e. M/s Tiranga Logistics Private Limited is engaged in business of transportation. It is having its office in Delhi and is having 412 commercial transport vehicles. One Shamsher @ Naveen Maan, proprietor of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManoj Jain, JDEEPAK DHARAMVEER SHARMA – AppellantVersusSTATE NCT OF DELHI – RespondentBAIL APPLN.-78/2026

Anticipatory bail may be denied when the applicant has received substantial proceeds from alleged fraud, has evaded investigation despite notice, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the truth behind a syndicate using fake bills.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Jain, J
DEEPAK DHARAMVEER SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-78/2026