ARSHAD vs STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI - 2026 Supreme(Del) 1099

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 120B - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 54, 59 - Application for regular bail - Fraudulent overseas employment scheme - Magnitude of fraud and recovery of illegal weapons - Bail refused.

(B) Parity in bail - Claim for parity is not sustainable when there is a significant difference in the roles played by the accused persons - A person who is a direct beneficiary of fraud and actively involved in the conspiracy cannot claim parity with a co-accused who was merely an office boy or peon and held no position of value in the fraudulent enterprise. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
Companies claiming to provide overseas placement and visas cheated numerous individuals by inducing them to pay money and surrender passports. It is alleged that the applicant was actively involved in running these illegal recruitment operations, hired the premises from which the operation functioned, and was a direct beneficiary of the cheated amount, which exceeded Rs. 1 Crore from over 150 victims. Additionally, an illegal country-made pistol, live cartridges, and forged rubber stamps were recovered from the applicant's possession.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the investigation established the applicant's active involvement in the conspiracy to cheat job seekers. Evidence including bank records and rent agreements proved the applicant was a direct beneficiary and operator of the premises. The illegal nature of the recovered weapon was further confirmed by a Forensic Science Laboratory report. These factors indicate a high gravity of offense and a significant magnitude of fraud.

Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the gravity of the offense and the recovery of illegal weapons, and whether the applicant can claim parity with a co-accused who had previously been granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Regular bail may be denied where the magnitude of the fraud is substantial, the number of victims is high, and the accused is a direct beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime. The recovery of illegal weapons further aggravates the case. Parity is not a matter of right and cannot be claimed when the role of the applicant is fundamentally different (active beneficiary/manager) from that of a co-accused who occupied a subordinate position (office boy/peon).

Result: The present bail application, along with the other pending application, is accordingly dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Bail application under BNSS, 2023 — Cheating on pretext of overseas employment — FIR under IPC and Arms Act. (Para 1 , 2 )

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking regular bail in connection with the proceedings arising from the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 178/2022 dated 15^th December, 2022, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), Delhi, under Sections 406/420/409/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”).

2. The aforesaid FIR was initially registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/120B of the IPC on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant, namely, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, along with 80 similar complaints made by other complainants.

3. The case being Cr. Case 2923/2023, in connection with the present FIR, is pending adjudication before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, and is presently at the stage of arguments on charge.

4. A Chargesheet dated 09^th March, 2023, and a Supplementary Chargesheet dated 10^th June, 2024, have been filed by the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”) before the Trial Court. As per the said Supplementary Chargesheet, the applicant has been charged under Sections 406/420/409/468/120B of the IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.

5. The applicant has previously moved two bail applications before the Trial Court, which were dismissed vide orders dated 19^th July, 2023, and 08^th February, 2024. The applicant was also denied bail by this Court vide order dated 22^nd May, 2024, in BAIL APPLN. 1544/2024.

6. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed from the material on record, is as follows:

6.1. The companies, namely, M/s Fiza Placement Pvt. Ltd. and M/s ASIATAS Consulting (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., claimed to provide overseas placement and employment in Gulf countries, and to arrange for employment visas and flight tickets.

6.2. The directors and employees of the said companies cheated the complainants by inducing them to submit their passports and pay money into their bank accounts on the pretext of securing overseas employment.

6.3. Thereafter, the companies closed their respective offices and misappropriated the money of the complainants for their own use.

6.4. During the course of investigation by the police, simultaneous raids were conducted at two different addresses and the accused persons, including the applicant herein, were arrested. Several pieces of incriminating evidence, such as passports, cheque books, forged visas and rubber stamps were recovered from the possession of the accused persons.

7. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was neither a director nor an owner of the aforesaid companies, but was merely an employee.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant draws the attention of this Court to the Seizure Memo dated 16^th December, 2022, pertaining to the seizure of 29 seals used for the purpose of printing visas for different countries. By referring to the said Seizure Memo, he submits that the same does not bear the applicant’s signature, and therefore, the recovery cannot be said to have been done at the applicant’s behest.

9. It is further submitted that there are 154 witnesses in respect of the proceedings before the Trial Court and the case is still at the stage of framing of charges. Consequently, the trial proceedings are likely to take time to conclude.

10. As per the Nominal Roll dated 02^nd February, 2026, provided by the concerned Jail Authorities, the applicant has been in custody since 16^th December, 2022, i.e., for approximately three years. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant has undergone a substantial period of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.

11. Moreover, it is submitted that out of the seven co-accused persons mentioned in the aforesaid Supplementary Chargesheet, three accused persons have already been granted bail.

12. In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) appearing for the State submits that