Pankaj Sharma & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~85, 104 & 10 to14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010514602026
+ CRL.M.C. 8037/2026, Crl.M.A.33570/2026, Crl.M.A.33571/2026
(85) DIXON TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika
Tuteja, Ms. Arusa Gupta, Mr.
Gauraang Singh Rawat, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR......Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
SI Sanjeev Chouhdary (EOW Cell)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. for Complainant (R-2)
# CNR No. DLHC010515952026
+
CRL.M.C. 8055/2026, Crl.M.A.33647/2026, Crl.M.A.33648/2026
(104) PANKAJ SHARMA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika
Tuteja, Ms. Arusa Gupta, Mr.
Gauraang Singh Rawat, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
SI Sanjeev Chouhdary (EOW Cell)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. for Complainant (R-2)
# CNR No. DLHC010288762026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2566/2026
(10) SANJEEV RATHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
Bansal, Advs. along with Mr. Ajay
Sharma (For Complainant)
SI Sanjeev Chouhdary (EOW Cell)
# CNR No. DLHC010298442026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2669/2026
(11) ANSH RATHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. along with Mr. Ajay
Sharma (For Complainant)
SI Sanjeev Chouhdary (EOW Cell)
# CNR No. DLHC010299212026
+
BAIL APPLN. 2670/2026
(12) ATUL VIVEK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. along with Mr. Ajay
Sharma (For Complainant)
SI Sanjeev Chouhdary (EOW Cell)
# CNR No. DLHC010292332026
+ CRL.M.C. 4731/2026, CRL.M.A. 19857/2026
(13) DIXON TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika
Tuteja, Ms. Arusa Gupta, Mr.
Gauraang Singh Rawat, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. along with Mr. Ajay
Sharma (For Complainant)
# CNR No. DLHC010291782026
+ CRL.M.C. 4746/2026, CRL.M.A. 19891/2026, 22957/2026
(14) PANKAJ SHARMA AND ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika
Tuteja, Ms. Arusa Gupta, Mr.
Gauraang Singh Rawat, Advs.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh (APP)
Mr. Shammy Kumar, Mr. Abhay
Bansal, Advs. along with Mr. Ajay
Sharma (For Complainant)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
CRL.M.A. 33571/2026 EX(FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNX.)
in CRL.M.C. 8037/2026
CRL.M.A. 33648/2026 EX(FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNX.)
in CRL.M.C. 8055/2026
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026
CRL.M.C. 8055/2026
BAIL APPLN. 2566/2026
BAIL APPLN. 2669/2026
BAIL APPLN. 2670/2026
CRL.M.C. 4731/2026
CRL.M.C. 4746/2026
3. All these matters arise out of FIR No. 285/2026, dated 26.06.2026,
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, West (Delhi), under Sections 318(4)/
61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the
complaint of Air Communication Services Private Limited (hereinafter
“ ACPL ”) through its Manager Ajay Sharma.
4. By order dated 13.08.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(CRL)
2437/2026, the investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences
Wing (EOW). These matters, arise out of the same FIR and are therefore
being disposed of by this common order.
5. Bail Application Nos. 2566/2026, 2669/2026, and 2670/2026 are the
applications filed by Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek,
respectively, for grant of anticipatory bail. They are associated with M/s.
NXTCELL India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “ NXTCELL ”).
6. CRL.M.C. 4731/2026 and CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 are the petitions,
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter “ BNSS ”) [corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “ CrPC ”)], filed by Dixon Technologies (India)
Limited (hereinafter “ Dixon ”), seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR No.
285/2026, dated 26.06.2026, registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, West
(Delhi).
7. CRL.M.C. 4746/2026 and CRL.M.C. 8055/2026 are the petitions,
under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the
CrPC), filed by Pankaj Sharma, Himanshu Maheshwari, and Padget
Electronics Private Limited (hereinafter “ Padget ”), seeking quashing of the
aforesaid FIR No. 285/2026, dated 26.06.2026, registered at P.S. Rajouri
Garden, West (Delhi).
8. CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 and CRL.M.C. 8055/2026 seek quashing qua
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
the petitioners therein based on a Settlement Agreement, dated 28.09.2026,
entered into among the petitioners therein and the complainant.
9. The relevant facts are as follows:
a. The case in the FIR is that in February 2026, Sanjeev Rathi,
Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek, acting for NXTCELL, induced
ACPL to procure 17,730 Mobile Handsets of Alcatel Brand
from Padget.
b. ACPL remitted Rs. 24,16,63,248 to Padget towards
procurement. It is alleged that the money was used to clear
NXTCELL’s earlier dues to Padget. It is further alleged that a
portion of the handsets supplied by Padget was of Dubai
specification rather than Indian specification, and that
NXTCELL failed to lift the stock as it had assured. Dixon,
Padget, Pankaj Sharma and Himanshu Maheshwari have been
arrayed as accused essentially on account of the supply of the
Dubai-specification stock.
c. The previous anticipatory bail applications filed by Sanjeev
Rathi, Ansh Rathi, and Atul Vivek came to be dismissed by the
Ld. ASJ (FTC)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide order
dated 06.07.2026.
d. On 09.07.2026, this Court referred the parties to mediation
under the aegis of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation
Centre.
e. On 17.07.2026, no coercive process was directed against the
three persons, i.e. , Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek
(applicants in Bail Application Nos. 2566/2026, 2669/2026,
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
and 2670/2026). The said interim orders have continued since.
The mediation qua Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek
failed.
f. On 28.09.2026, ACPL (complainant) on one hand, and Padget,
Dixon, Pankaj Sharma, and Himanshu Maheshwari (petitioners
in CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 and CRL.M.C. 8055/2026) on the
other hand, executed a Settlement Agreement before
Samadhan . It is to be noted that Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi, and
Atul Vivek are not parties to it.
g. Vide order dated 30.09.2026 (passed in CRL.M.C. 4746/2026,
CRL.M.C. 4731/2026, Bail Application Nos. 2566/2026,
2669/2026, and 2670/2026), the State was granted three weeks
to file an updated status report. The same is not on record.
h. Today, it is stated by Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP for the State,
that all three bail applicants, i.e. , Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and
Atul Vivek (applicants in Bail Application Nos. 2566/2026,
2669/2026, and 2670/2026), have joined the investigation. He
submits that, given the nature of the matter, their custodial
interrogation is not required.
i. As per the Settlement Agreement dated 28.09.2026, it has been
agreed that Padget, Dixon, Pankaj Sharma, and Himanshu
Maheshwari have to pay Rs. 50,00,000 to ACPL by way of a
demand draft. The Settlement Agreement dated 28.09.2026
contemplates as under:
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
j. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for ACPL gives
his no objection to quashing of FIR in terms of Clause 2 of the
Settlement Agreement which reads as follows:
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
k. It is also pointed out that in terms of Clause 4 of the Settlement
Agreement, the Dubai-specification stock is to be converted by
Padget Electronics Private Limited to Indian specification.
Clause 4 of the Settlement Agreement reads as under:
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
l. The parties undertake to cooperate in the investigation,
including by way of appearing as witnesses as required in
accordance with law. This is specifically set out in Clause 5 of
the Settlement Agreement, which reads as follows:
m. Mr. Ajay Sharma, the Authorised Representative/ Manager of
Air Communication Services Private Limited (ACPL) has filed
an affidavit of no objection to the quashing qua the petitioners.
It has been averred therein as under:
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
10. In the above background, learned counsel for Dixon, Padget, Pankaj
Sharma, and Himanshu Maheshwari submits that the dispute is purely
commercial and that the only grievance against them regarding specification
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
of the handsets stands resolved.
11. Learned counsel for Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi, and Atul Vivek
submits that ACPL bought the handsets from Padget and received all the
units. It is submitted that NXTCELL had paid ACPL a sum of Rs. 4.20
crores as advance in addition to credit of Rs. 80,00,000 (totalling Rs. 5
Crores). The grievance canvassed by learned counsel is that ACPL
terminated NXTCELL’s purchase order and retained the advance amount.
12. As pointed out by learned APP for the State, Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh
Rathi, and Atul Vivek have joined the investigation and are cooperating with
the same.
13. Learned counsel for ACPL supports the quashing qua the settling
parties but opposes the anticipatory bail to Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi, and
Atul Vivek. It is further submitted that ACPL paid a considerable amount
based on false representation made by NXTCELL.
REASONING AND CONCLUSION
14. The legal position is well settled that this Court may quash
proceedings in non-compoundable offences on a settlement where the
offences overwhelmingly bear a civil flavour. In the present case, the
complaint is by a private company against parties with whom there were
commercial dealings and no public money or statutory body is involved.
The inter se grievance between the settling parties stands resolved in terms
of the Settlement Agreement which has been placed on record. The said
settlement agreement was arrived at between the parties under the aegis of
the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
15. With regard to this, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , discussed the inherent power of the High
Court to quash an FIR on settlement:
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having
regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the
victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable,
it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will
be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor . No
doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and
consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-
being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only
because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been
made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the
court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have
no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the
wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have
settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact
that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High
Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive
. Each case
will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
prescribed.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
SCC 641 , summarised the position qua compromise quashing in the
following manner:
“ 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of
justice. The provision does not confer new powers
. It only recognises
and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
*
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice
would justify the exercise of the inherent power
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a
.
wide ambit
and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice,
or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court
.
*
As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal
cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise
of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.7.
Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.8.
*
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions
16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial
and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants
. The
High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of
upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. ”
(emphasis supplied)
17. The apex Court has reiterated this legal position in Narinder Singh v.
State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi
, (2014) 6 SCC 466
Narayan , (2019) 5 SCC 688 .
18. As such, this Court finds no impediment in quashing the concerned
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 14 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
proceedings qua the petitioners in CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 and 8055/2026.
Accordingly, the said petitions are allowed. FIR No. 285/2026, dated
26.06.2026, registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, West (Delhi), and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed qua Padget Electronics
Private Limited, Dixon Technologies (India) Limited, Pankaj Sharma and
Himanshu Maheshwari.
19. The same shall be subject to the said parties remaining bound by the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and also continuing to cooperate with the
EOW in the investigation, including by way of producing documents and
appearing as witnesses, as and when required in accordance with law.
20. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 and 8055/2026 are disposed of in
the above terms.
BAIL APPLN. 2566/2026
BAIL APPLN. 2669/2026
BAIL APPLN. 2670/2026
21. Learned APP for the State has taken a clear stand that the accused
Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek have joined the investigation and
that their custodial interrogation is not required, given the said submission
and also taking into account the fact that the case primarily rests on
documents like proforma invoices, purchase orders, and bank transfers.
22. In the circumstances, this Court finds no impediment in granting
anticipatory bail to the petitioner, while also bearing in mind that the said
persons have been on interim protection since 17.07.2026.
23. In this regard, it would be apposite to make a reference to the apex
Court’s decision in Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat , 2025 INSC 291 ,
wherein the Court noted:
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 15 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
“ 18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact
that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary
evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail
to the appellant . The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of
administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct
physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial
interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity
for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of
official records, which can be done without placing him in
detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness
to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed
before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the
investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that
anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not
essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on
official records and the presence of the accused can be secured
without pre- trial detention.
The Court also takes note of the fact that
the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against
the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a
likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the
grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant
shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall
not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to
ensure his participation in the inquiry process. ”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Reference may also be made to the observation of Supreme Court in
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , (2011) 1 SCC
694 , as under:
“ 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into
consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation
and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether
the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by
a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or
other offences;
;
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 16 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of people
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the
accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the
exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused
is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code,
1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution
because overimplication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there
should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
;
(x) 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.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to
those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in
the facts and circumstances of that case.
The court must carefully
examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations
which have been directly attributed to the accused and these
allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on
record. ”
(emphasis supplied)
25. This Court in Pinki v. The State of NCT of Delhi , 2025:DHC:8748
granted anticipatory bail on the following observations:
“ 25. The petitioners have been under interim protection since
September/October 2024 pursuant to orders of this Court. During
this period, they have regularly joined investigation and cooperated
with the Investigating Officer. No instance of absconding, misuse of
liberty, or attempt to tamper with evidence has been reported. The
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 17 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
need for custodial interrogation is not supported by any specific
material.
The evidence relied upon is largely documentary in nature-
comprising partnership deeds, bank records, and financial statements,
which are either already in the possession of the parties or accessible
to the investigating agency.
26. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8
SCC 273, has cautioned against routine arrests and held that
arrest
must be an exception and not the rule, particularly where custodial
recovery is not required
. Further, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it has been observed that criminal
proceedings should not be permitted to be used as instruments of
harassment in civil disputes.
In the present case, considering the admitted documentary
evidence, the petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation, and the
fact that they have not misused interim protection, custodial
interrogation may not be warranted.
27.
At the same time, this Court
remains conscious of the seriousness of the allegations, which
necessitates the imposition of strict conditions to safeguard the
interests of investigation while protecting the petitioners’ right to
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. ”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest in FIR No.
285/2026, dated 26.06.2026, registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, West
(Delhi), Sanjeev Rathi, Ansh Rathi and Atul Vivek (applicants) shall be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer (IO). The same shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicants in the aforesaid bail applications shall continue
to cooperate in the investigation and shall join the investigation
as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer (IO).
b. The applicants shall not travel out of the country without prior
permission of the Trial Court.
c. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59
or influence the complainant, its officers or any witnesses or
tamper with any evidence.
27. If the applicants fail to join the investigation or breach any of the
aforesaid conditions, it shall be open for the State to seek cancellation of
bail.
28. The Bail applications are allowed in the above terms.
29. The petitions and the pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
CRL.M.C. 4731/2026
CRL.M.C. 4746/2026
30. CRL.M.C. 4731/2026 is filed by Dixon and CRL.M.C. 4746/2026 is
filed by Pankaj Sharma, Himanshu Maheshwari, and Padget, seeking
quashing of the aforesaid FIR No. 285/2026, dated 26.06.2026, registered at
P.S. Rajouri Garden, West (Delhi).
31. Considering that the aforesaid FIR No. 285/2026 has been quashed
qua the petitioners herein in CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 and 8055/2026 on the
basis of a Settlement Agreement, the present petitions have been rendered
infructuous. They are, accordingly, disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ uk/vk
CRL.M.C. 8037/2026 & connected matters Page 19 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:16:59