Mohd Tasleem vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 04 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010361902026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3188/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23975/2026
MOHD TASLEEM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Kukkar, Mr. Mohit
Kumar and Mr. Harsh Singh, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP
M: 9868632122
Insp. Jasveer Singh, PS EOW
Mob: 9315216818
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking regular bail to
the petitioner, i.e., Mohd Tasleem, S/o Sharafat Ali, in connection with the
th
First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR No. 178/2022 , dated 15
December, 2022, registered at Police Station (“PS”) Economic Offences
Wing (“EOW”), Delhi, under Sections 406/420/409/468/201/120B/174A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 25 of the Arms Act, 1959
(“Arms Act”).
2. The facts, culled out from the document on record, relevant for the
adjudication of the present application, are as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 1 of 10

th
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered on 15 December 2022, pursuant
to a written complaint by Dharmendra Kumar, i.e., the complainant, whereby,
allegations had been levelled against M/s Fiza Placement and M/s ASIATAS
Consulting (OPC) Private Limited, that they cheated victims on the pretext of
arranging work-permit visas and sending them to Gulf countries for
employment.
2.2. The victims were required to submit their Passports and make payments
towards the visa processing, air tickets and other allied services. However,
after receiving the money and passports, the accused persons closed their
office and misappropriated the money.
2.3. During the course of investigation, complaints of more than 150 victims
were received, involving an amount of approximately Rs. 1,00,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore only) against the said two companies.
2.4. During investigation, several arrests were made and incriminating
evidence was recovered and preserved. It was discovered that passports of
various victims were retained by the accused, and payments were received by
them in both cash as well as online banking channels.
2.5. The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, confirmed that
the said companies were not registered as recruiting agents and have not
obtained their certifications, therefore, the companies were not legally
authorised to undertake recruitment/placement activities for employment
abroad or to retain Passports, in connection thereto.
2.6. During investigation, 364 Passports were recovered, along with 59
visas, which were confirmed as unfit to be used for international travel.
Forged rubber seals/stamps of different foreign countries were also recovered.
A country made pistol/improvised firearm with 05 (five) live rounds was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 2 of 10

recovered from co-accused, Arshad and seized.
2.7. Passports were also recovered and seized from the office premises of
M/s ASIATAS Consulting (OPC) Private Limited, of which, the petitioner is
the sole director. The petitioner was searched at all possible hideouts, but he
st
absconded. The petitioner was finally arrested after 02 (two) years, on 31
August, 2024.
3. The Sessions Case, being SC 2923/2023, is pending adjudication before
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) (SFTC), Dwarka Courts, New
Delhi, and is presently at the stage of charges.
th
4. As per the latest Nominal Roll dated 16 September, 2026, furnished
st
by the Jail Authorities, the petitioner has been in custody since 31 August,
th
2024, i.e., for a period of 02 (two) years and 16 (sixteen) days, as of 16
September, 2026.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, the following case has been put forth:
5.1. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he is
illiterate with no knowledge of the company incorporated in his name, and
there is no legally admissible evidence connecting the petitioner with the
fraudulent scheme, alleged to have been orchestrated by the accused persons.
5.2. The petitioner has been in prolonged custody for approximately 25
(twenty-five) months, without the commencement of trial and single
prosecution evidence being examined.
5.3. The trial is likely to take a prolonged period since there are more than
150 witnesses and further incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, 1950 (“Constitution”).
5.4. As against the petitioner, the Chargesheet merely references a total
turnover of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) and cash deposits of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 3 of 10

Rs. 4,92,500/- (Rupees Four Lac Ninety-Two Thousand and Five Hundred
only) in ASIATAS’s HDFC account. The main beneficiaries who received
direct victim transfers are already on bail.
5.5. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR or in the main
th
Chargesheet dated 13 March, 2023, and was arrested based solely on the
disclosure statement of the accused persons, and no recovery or independent
evidence was found in corroboration of the disclosure statement.
5.6. The investigation in the matter is complete and supplementary
Chargesheet/Final Report has already been filed, therefore, the custody of the
petitioner is no longer required.
5.7. The co-accused, Shruti, has been granted regular bail by the Trial Court
th
vide order dated 17 April, 2023, after undergoing 04 (four) months of
custody, while co-accused Gulbahar Ali is presently on bail, and co-accused
th
Jakir Daud Khan has also been granted bail vide order dated 28 April, 2023,
by this Court.
5.8. All material evidence relied upon by the prosecution is entirely
documentary in nature and already stands seized and placed on judicial record,
therefore, there is no possibility of tampering with the same.
5.9. The petitioner has clean antecedents and is the sole bread earner of this
family.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State opposes
th
the present bail application, and relies upon the Status Report dated 18
September, 2026, filed on behalf of the State.
7. The case of the prosecution, against the present bail application, as
emerging from the said Status Report is as follows:
7.1. The petitioner is the sole director of M/s ASIATAS Consulting (OPC)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 4 of 10

Private Limited, and is also the authorised signatory of the bank account of
the said company. The said bank account statement reflects transactions of
approximately Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) received from the
victims from October to December, 2022.
7.2. There are multiple complaints which disclose the involvement of the
present petitioner, furthermore, recovery of Passports and other incriminating
material were recovered from the premises of M/s ASIATAS Consulting
(OPC) Private Limited.
7.3. The petitioner fails to produce any authority letter, agreement or any
other documentary proof in support of his claim that M/s ASIATAS
Consulting (OPC) Private Limited was controlled, administered and operated
by the other co-accused persons.
7.4. The petitioner’s claim for parity is untenable as the role of the petitioner
and nature of evidence against him are materially different from the other co-
accused. The petitioner is the sole director/shareholder of M/s ASIATAS
Consulting (OPC) Private Limited, whereas, the other co-accused persons did
not have such direct corporate/financial control over the said company.
8. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the present case involves allegations of large-scale financial fraud,
with a large-scale impact on multiple victims. Furthermore, the petitioner is
the sole director/shareholder of the accused company, while the other co-
accused do not have such direct corporate/financial control over the accused
company.
9. In this regard, this Court affords attention to the observations made by
the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy
Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , whereby, it held
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 5 of 10

that while considering bails in economic offences, a different approach is
required to be taken as such offences have public ramifications. The relevant
excerpts of the said judgement are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied )
10. Further, the Supreme Court in the case titled as X Versus State of
Rajasthan and Another , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 , has stated that
ordinarily in serious offences, once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court
should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. The
relevant excerpts of the said order are as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the
High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application
of the accused .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 6 of 10

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)
either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before
the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial
court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral
evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some
discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing
the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion
which may either result in the conviction of the accused or
acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises
its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the
accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it
will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to
appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event
if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the
part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his
release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Further, in its decision in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Sri
Darshan and Others, (2026) 8 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court laid down the
following considerations that are relevant when exercising discretion to grant
or deny bail:
“xxx xxx xxx
29.2. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad
Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280: 2001
SCC (Cri) 674], this Court laid down guiding principles:
“(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails conviction and the nature
of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 7 of 10

the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter
of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the
normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
bail.”
xxx xxx xxx
35.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does
not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere
prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the
gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered
during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with
witnesses.
35.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42: 2005 SCC
(Cri) 489], this Court categorically held that: (SCC p. 48, para 8)
“8. … the High Court could not have allowed the bail application
on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without
taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution
in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence,
and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and
inducement when on bail. … non-consideration of the same and
grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated
the order…”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Fruitful reference may also be made to the judgment in the case of
Centrum Financial Services Ltd. Versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13
SCC 286 , wherein, the Supreme Court has made the following material
observations:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 8 of 10

“xxx xxx xxx
28. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., it is held by this Court in
para 11 as under: (SCC p. 428)

“11. It is a well-settled principle of law that while
dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of
the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they
basically are : (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the
complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge.
29. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), it is observed
and held by this Court that while granting bail, the relevant
considerations are:
(i) nature of seriousness of the offence;
(ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; and
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
(iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution
witnesses, its impact on the society; and
(v) likelihood of his tampering.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

13. This Court notes that economic offences involve criminal breach of
trust, systematic manipulation of institutional processes and cheating of
public funds which constitute grave offences against the Society.
14. It is to be noted that the plea of prolonged incarceration raised by the
petitioner does not dilute the gravity of the allegations and the strength of
evidence collected during investigation.
15. This Court also takes note of the submission made on behalf of the State
that the petitioner has failed to produce any authority letter, agreement or any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 9 of 10

other documentary proof in support of his claim that M/s ASIATAS
Consulting (OPC) Private Limited was controlled, administered and operated
by the other co-accused persons. It is also material to note that petitioner has
been stated to be the sole director and authorised signatory of the company
i.e., M/s ASIATAS Consulting (OPC) Private Limited. Thus, the petitioner is
one of the main accused/conspirators in the alleged nexus being the sole
director and authorised signatory of the company.
16. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to note that the role and nature of
evidence against the petitioner is materially different from those of the co-
accused persons who have been granted bail. The other co-accused persons
did not have direct corporate or financial control over the company, unlike the
petitioner, who on account of being the sole director and authorised signatory
of the company, has direct corporate and financial control over the company.
17. The case is at nascent stage and therefore, this Court finds no merit in
the present petition.
18. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made before this Court, the
present petition is accordingly dismissed.
19. However, it is clarified that nothing contained herein shall be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case.



MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:20:32
Page 10 of 10