Oma Kant Gupta vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Sho

$~120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025, CRL.M.A. 27710/2025,
CRL.M.A. 35235/2025
OMA KANT GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti Ms.
Praveena Bisht, Mr. Siddharth
Tripathi, Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for State.

CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. ( Oral )
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking
grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no.
109/2025, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(2)/318(4)/
319(2)/204/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(hereafter ‘BNS’ ).
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as per the
prosecution, are that a complaint was received from Smt. Indu
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

Mahajan, resident of Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi. She alleged
that on 15.03.2025 she received a WhatsApp call from mobile
number +91-9056689953 from a person who introduced himself as
Vijay Khanna. The caller informed her that he was a surveillance
officer and that her bank accounts were under surveillance pursuant
to orders of the court. During the call, he added other persons and
informed her that a CBI officer was also present on the call. The
caller further told her that she was under “digital arrest” on account
of her alleged involvement in a money laundering case relating to a
Canara Bank account and also sent her a purported Supreme Court
order through WhatsApp. It is alleged that during a group video call,
a person posing as a judge informed the complainant that a non-
bailable warrant had been issued against her. She was further told
that her financial transactions were required to be monitored to
ascertain her involvement in the alleged money laundering case and
was instructed not to speak to anyone or leave her house without their
permission. It is further alleged that under the said pretext, the
fraudsters induced the complainant to transfer ₹30,00,000/- on
18.03.2025 from her SBI account no. 30556629953 to account no.
259510511846 (IFSC: INDB0001006). She was also induced to
transfer another amount of ₹80,10,010/- to account no.
243005500991 maintained with ICICI Bank. Thereafter, on
23.03.2025, the complainant registered a complaint on the cyber
helpline (1930) vide NCRP complaint no. 30803250026880.
3. During investigation, the details of account no. 259510511846
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

(IFSC: INDB0001006), in which ₹30,00,000/- had been transferred,
were obtained and it was found to be in the name of Proprietor,
Qualilogix Pharma Consulting Private Limited, having address H.
No. 570, Kh. No. 54/3, Nangloi Extension, Block C-3, Baprola, New
Delhi-110041. The said firm was found to be linked to the present
applicant Om Kant Gupta, resident of Alwar, Rajasthan, and Sarita
Kumari Gupta. During investigation, a raid was conducted at the said
address; however, the applicant was not found there and it was learnt
that he had left the said place several years ago. Further investigation
revealed that mobile number 9510511846 was registered in the name
of Om Kant Gupta, C-501, Pushpak Height, Kalol, Gandhi Nagar,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It is further stated that a notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS (earlier Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.) was issued to
the applicant directing him to join the investigation on 08.05.2025;
however, he did not join the investigation. The address furnished for
opening the said bank account was also verified and it was found that
the premises had never been taken on rent or lease for running any
office or for opening the said bank account, and the owner of the
premises Ravinder Phoghat was also examined during investigation
who denied leasing out the premises to the applicant. The applicant’s
brother was also examined by the I.O. who stated that the said
premises had never been taken on rent by the applicant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that, in
fact, he himself is a victim of a conspiracy. It is contended that the
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

applicant had no role in the transactions of money which were
credited to the bank account in question. It is further submitted that
the applicant’s e-mail account had been hacked, which he later
secured by changing the security credentials. It is stated that
thereafter, on 19.03.2025, the applicant immediately informed
IndusInd Bank and requested that his bank account be frozen. Upon
further scrutiny of his account, he allegedly noticed several
suspicious logins and transactions made from an IP address located in
Singapore on 16.03.2025. It is submitted that the applicant is willing
to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, it is prayed that the
applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
5. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the
present application and submits that a notice under Section 35(3) of
BNSS was served upon the applicant directing him to join the
investigation; however, he has not complied with the said notice. It is
further argued that the address provided for opening the bank account
in question was verified during investigation and it was found that the
said premises had never been taken on rent or lease for running any
office or for opening the said bank account. It is also submitted that
the owner of the premises has been examined in this regard. The
learned APP further submits that the applicant is the beneficiary of
₹30,00,000/-, which was directly credited into his bank account as the
first layer from the complainant’s account. It is also stated that the
mobile number linked to the said bank account, i.e., 9510511846, is
registered in the name of the present applicant and the transaction
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

alert was also delivered to the said mobile number. Further, on the
date of the transaction, i.e., 18.03.2025, another mobile number,
7600560941, allegedly used by the applicant, was also found to be
active at the same location as the mobile number linked to the bank
account. It is, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required and the present application for anticipatory bail
deserves to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material
available on record.
7. After hearing the arguments and going through the case file,
this Court is of the opinion that though the learned counsel for the
applicant has contended that the applicant himself is a victim of fraud
and has no connection with the alleged offence, the material collected
during investigation, at this stage, does not support the said
contention. The investigation reveals that a sum of ₹30,00,000/- was
credited into the bank account of the present applicant from the
account of the complainant. It is also a matter of record that the
mobile number linked with the said bank account, i.e., 9510511846,
is registered in the name of the applicant and the transaction alert
regarding the said transfer was delivered on the said mobile number.
It is further noted that on the date of the transaction, i.e., 18.03.2025,
another mobile number 7600560941, allegedly used by the present
applicant, was also found active at the same location where the bank-
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

linked mobile number was operating.
8. This Court further notes from the investigation and the Call
Detail Record (CDR) analysis that the mobile number linked with the
account remained active at Gandhinagar, Gujarat on 15.03.2025 and
thereafter, on 16.03.2025, the SIM card was inserted into another
device at Vadodara, Gujarat. During the relevant period between
16.03.2025 and 18.03.2025, the SIM was used in multiple devices,
including on the date of the alleged transaction. It is also noted that
the applicant was present in Vadodara, Gujarat during this period.
Further, soon after the completion of the transactions on 19.03.2025,
the applicant obtained a new SIM card with a different IMSI, which
prima facie raises further suspicion regarding his conduct.
9. It is material to note that credit transactions amounting to about
₹1.50 crores have surfaced in the said account during the period from
21.09.2024 to 18.03.2025, without any complaint being lodged by the
applicant during that period, which prima facie belies his claim that
he was unaware of the transactions taking place in his account.
10. It is further pertinent to note that during investigation, the
applicant was not found residing at the address which had been
furnished by him for opening the bank account, and it has been stated
that he had been frequently changing his residence. Verification of
the address provided for opening the bank account has revealed that
the applicant had never opened any office at the said premises.
Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation also indicate
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

that the premises shown in the photographs submitted as part of the
KYC documents belonged to the said Ravinder and had never been
taken on rent by the present applicant.
11. It is also a matter of record that the amount of ₹30,00,000/-
credited into the account of the present applicant on 18.03.2025 was
transferred on the very same day to multiple other bank accounts,
leaving a balance of only ₹6,722 in the account. Investigation further
reveals that the said bank account had been opened on 12.09.2024,
and that credit transactions amounting to ₹52,03,712 had taken place
in the said account from the date of opening till 16.03.2025. Notably,
on the date of the alleged offence itself, i.e., 18.03.2025, an amount
of ₹98,04,000 was credited into the said account and was
immediately transferred to other accounts.
12. This Court also takes note of the fact that four other NCRP
complaints relating to cyber fraud have been found registered against
the same bank account in the name of the present applicant.
13. This Court also notes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
taken suo motu cognizance of the issue of so-called “digital arrests”
carried out on the basis of forged judicial documents and registered
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 03/2025 titled In Re: Victims
of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents . In its order dated
17.10.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, inter alia , observed as
under:
“4. The forgery of documents and the brazen criminal misuse
of the name, seal, and judicial authority of this Court or a High
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

Court is a matter of grave concern. The fabrication of judicial
orders bearing forged signatures of Judges strikes at the very
foundation of public trust in the judicial system, besides the
rule of law. Such acts constitute a direct assault on the dignity
and majesty of this institution, therefore, such grave criminal
acts cannot be treated as ordinary or routine offences of
cheating or cybercrime.
5. We are also inclined to take judicial notice of the fact that
the instant case is not a solitary instance. It has been reported
many times in responsible media reports that such like
occurrences have happened in the past in different parts of the
country. We are, therefore of the prima facie view that a stern
action on Pan India basis with coordinated efforts between the
Central and State Police are required to unearth the full extent
of this criminal enterprise involving forgery of judicial
documents, cyber extortion and cyber arrest of the innocent
people, especially the senior citizens.”

14. This Court’s attention is also drawn to the order dated
17.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-noted
suo motu proceedings, wherein the victim/complainant in the present
FIR was permitted to assist the Court as an intervenor. It was further
directed therein that co-accused Vijay Khanna and another co-
accused, who had already been arrested, shall not be released on bail
by any court till the investigation in the case reaches its logical
conclusion.
15. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against
the applicant relate to a serious instance of cyber fraud involving the
modus operandi of so-called “digital arrest”. Such offences are
carried out through technological means to deceive and extort money
from unsuspecting victims and, as noticed by the Hon’ble Supreme
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51

Court, such cases are increasingly being reported across the country.
16. This Court is of the view that grant of anticipatory bail at this
stage is likely to impede the investigation, particularly when
custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to unearth the
entire modus operandi and the larger conspiracy.
17. The present bail application, alongwith pending applications, is
accordingly dismissed.
18. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
19. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MARCH 11, 2026/vc
T.D.
BAIL APPLN. 3534/2025 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified



Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:12.03.2026
19:39:51