In an application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered for the commission of offenses under Sections 406/409/420/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia released the applicant on bail and directed all Principal District and Sessions Judges, Director General (Prisons), Delhi, Secretary (DHCLSC), and Member Secretary, DLSA to ensure compliance of the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the release of undertrials in detention.
The applicant cheated the complainant and her daughter by impersonating as one Shaurya multiple times, and had induced them to pay money under different pretexts, such as arranging a government job, arranging tenders in MTNL, BMW, and Google, apart from investment in companies. The applicant had also received money from the complainant in the name of getting her daughter married. He also collected money from the complainant in the name of family issues.
The applicant contended that it was not believable that a person would allow herself to be cheated so many times on different pretexts and that something more existed in the present case. It was also contended that, out of the 5 persons named as accused, only the applicant was arrested and incarcerated. The applicant asserted that he got arrested on 21-07-2023, and that the maximum sentence that could be imposed under Section 420 of the IPC was 7 years.
It was argued that the applicant had already spent more than 1/3 of the period in jail and that, as per an order dated 23-08-2024 by the Supreme Court in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons [W.P.(C) 406/2013], he deserved to be granted bail. It was also contended that the transactions took place in 2016-17, but the FIR was registered only in 2021, for which no explanation was provided.
The Court disapproved of the investigating agency’s conduct for having filed a misleading report dated 28-07-2025, referring to certain audio conversations recorded between the victim and the applicant (accused). Upon being called upon to play the same, the Investigating Officer mentioned that the recordings were of the co-accused, and not the applicant, for which no explanation was given.
Further, the Court was unclear as to why only the applicant had been arrested out of the 5 accused in the present matter. It was noted that the chargesheet had recorded that the co-accused, who had not been arrested, had impersonated himself as a CBI Sub-Inspector and extorted money from the complainant under the pretext of getting back her money from the present applicant. The Court said that although it is the prerogative of the investigator to arrest or not arrest an accused, such conduct raised unanswered questions in the present situation.
Considering the period of the applicant’s incarceration, especially in light of the fact that to date, even charges had not been framed, the Court stated that Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) would be applicable since the applicant was a first-time offender and had spent more that 1/3rd of the maximum imposable sentence.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s specific directions in In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (supra), as well as the mandate of Section 479, the Court found no reason to deprive the applicant of his liberty and released him on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount.
The Court considered the submissions of the senior counsel for the applicant that many first-time offenders are languishing in jails after suffering incarceration for 1/3rd period or even more of the maximum sentence that can be imposed on them, despite the Supreme Court’s directions. It was directed that a copy of the present order be sent to all Principal District and Sessions Judges as well as the Director General (Prisons), Delhi, with directions to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. The Court also directed that a copy be sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC, and the Member Secretary, DLSA, with directions to take up such matters so that the said directions are complied with.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Amit Chadha (Sr. Adv), Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Puneet Rathor, Mr. Mohit Singh, Mr. Atin Chadha, Mrs. M. Chadha, Mr. Harjas Singh, Ms. Rekha Yadav, Ms. A. Singh, Mr. Ankush Sharma
For Respondent – Mr. Amit Ahlawat (APP)
For Complainant – Mr. Deepak Tiwari, Mr. Saksham Upadhyay
