Deepak Dharamveer Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 23.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 25.04.2026


+ BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 & CRL.M.A. 711/2026
DEEPAK DHARAMVEER SHARMA .....Petitioner
versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Memo of Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Anand, Mr. Eshaan Seth, Mr. Pawan Yadav &
Ms. Radha, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State;
Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atin Chadha,
Ms. Munisha Chadha, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Dhruv
Tomar, Ms. A. Singh, Mrs. Rekha Yadav and Mr. Ankush,
Advocates for Complainant

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
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
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 1

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

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
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 2

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

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 Pooja Trading Company
approached complainant company and represented that he and his other
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 3

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

associates were in the business of paper trading and other services, for which
they needed transport services. Shamsher also told them that he was
associated with Deepak Sharma i.e. applicant herein who was proprietor of
Vashisht Paper Products and Om Sai Traders . The complainant company
was also introduced to one Ganesh @ Anna , who was claimed to be a local
transporter working under the name and style of Shri Ganpati Transport and
Shri Ganesh Transport .
12. There were several rounds of meeting and, eventually, complainant
company agreed to provide transportation facility.
13. There was no written agreement but it was verbally agreed that the
complainant company would be handling the transportation operation of the
accused persons, on the prevailing market rates. The complainant was given
a rosy picture and asked to take services of Ganesh @ Anna for all local
transport services, as a local vendor would be efficient for completion of
transport work. All such persons further introduced one Subhash Ram
Chander Tiwari, proprietor of Hariom Industries and as per agreement, the
complainant company provided total services of Rs. 19.41 crores but
accused made payment of Rs. 6.85 cores only, leaving balance of substantial
amount.
14. According to Learned APP, the modus operandi was ingenious one
and accused persons used to inform the complainant company about the
needs and requirements of trucks and other commercial vehicles and
complainant company used to provide vehicles and wherever required, it
used to take assistance of local transporter and used to make payment to
Ganesh @ Anna and his firms so that he is in position to arrange requisite
transportation services al local level. All the accused were hand-in-glove
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 4

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

and working as a syndicate and are involved in many other matters of
similar nature. It is claimed that applicant has churned a false story that he
was cheated by his co-accused whereas, they all have cheated complainant,
in a calculated manner. They raised fake bills as the destination mentioned
in such bills did not even exist. So much so, though it used to be claimed
that goods had been transported through trucks, some such vehicle numbers,
provided to the complainant, were, eventually, found to be of two-wheelers.
15. Thus, according to prosecution, the accused persons had dishonest
intention from the very beginning and they all, in a preplanned manner,
fraudulently and dishonestly induced complainant to provide with transport
facilities.
16. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and
carefully perused the material on record.
17. As per the stand taken by the applicant herein, his co-accused were,
eventually, found to be dishonest. He, though, knew them in advance but
claims that he had no knowledge about their dishonest intention. According
to him, his co-accused, being actual mastermind, were responsible for the
alleged cheating and misappropriation and the moment he learnt about the
same, he contacted the complainant and informed them about the aforesaid
fact. Fact, however, remains that applicant is still elusive and has not come
forward. His co-accused are also at large.
18. Admittedly, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. had been issued to him
on several occasions. Yes, on few such occasions, he was already running in
custody in some other case and was lodged in jail but fact remains that his
counsel responded to one such notice and, therefore, it cannot be said that
the applicant was oblivious or unaware about these notices. One such notice
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 5

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

dated 19.12.2024 was duly responded by his counsel but despite that the
applicant did not bother to participate in the investigation. He had been
released from custody in the other case on 24.12.2024 and in such a peculiar
backdrop, he should have immediately contacted the investigating agency if
his intention, actually speaking, was bona fide . He remained elusive after his
release in the aforesaid case and, therefore, the investigating agency was left
with no option but to obtain NBWs against him. This Court, however, does
find any real necessity of going into all such details at the moment as
applicant has filed a separate petition i.e. Crl. M.C. No. 1290/2026 in which
he has challenged the issuance of coercive process and has sought its recall.
19. As per the status report placed on record by the investigating agency,
applicant seems to be beneficiary of huge amount.
20. A sum of Rs. 6 crores is found credited in his personal account which
he had received through Shri Ganesh Transport . As proprietor of Vashisht
Paper Product , he received another amount of around Rs. 5 crores from Shri
Ganesh Transport and Shri Ganpati Transport and the transfer of such huge
amount, in his own account by those who have cheated the complainant, has
not been explained by the applicant and his version that his co-accused were
having control over his bank account does not seem to be credible and
convincing.
21. The allegations appearing in FIR indicate that complainant and all the
accused persons had meetings and there was verbal agreement and,
therefore, it cannot be said that complainant has clubbed different causes of
actions into one or that applicant is not privy to anything. Of course, Section
406/420 IPC cannot co-exist but such aspect is better left for consideration
of the learned Trial Court. I need not emphasize that when facts are
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 6

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04

complicated and Court is in doubt, it can even frame charges, in alternate.
The aspect - whether deception was there at the very inception or not -
would also become clear when thorough investigation is made and applicant
is interrogated. He is evading investigating agency and is not coming
forward and, therefore, at this initial juncture, applicant cannot take any
advantage from Sushil Sethi Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh 2020 SCC
Online SC115.
22. Admittedly, at first blush, it may look to be a case of civil nature but
fact remains that applicant himself has admitted that his co-accused were
running a syndicate and were having dishonest intention and keeping in
mind the fact that he has received substantial money from his co-accused, in
particular, from Ganesh @ Anna and the fact that there are various fake
bills, the truth would come out only when there is comprehensive
investigation and applicant is interrogated. In State (Represented by CBI) v.
Anil Sharma:(1997)7 SCC 187 , Hon’ble Supreme Court found force in the
submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a
favourable order and well-protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail and,
therefore, such person can afford to elude investigating agency.
23. Resultantly, finding no merit and substance in the present application,
the same stands dismissed.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE



APRIL 25, 2026/ dr/pb
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 78/2026 7

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:25.04.2026
16:31:04