Rishabh Gehlot vs. State (Nct Of Delhi)

$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13.04.2026

+ BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025
RISHABH GEHLOT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Puneet
Rathor, Mr. Mohit Singh, Mr. Atin
Chadha, Mrs. M. Chadha, Mr. Harjas
Singh, Ms. Rekha Yadav, Ms. A.
Singh and Mr. Ankush Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with IO/SI Lakhan.
Mr. Deepak Tiwari and Mr. Saksham
Upadhyay, Advocates for
complainant.


CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA




J U D G M E N T (ORAL)


1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 45/2021 of
PS Economic Offences Wing for offence under Section 406/409/420/120B/
506 IPC.

2. This regular bail application was listed for hearing for the first time
on 28.05.2025 before another bench of this court. Thereafter, the matter
came up before another learned Single Judge of this court, where the matter

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 1 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:27:23 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


was heard for five dates of hearing, and even specific queries were raised by
the learned Judge as mentioned in order dated 13.11.2025, for explanation
whereof time was taken by the counsel for the accused/applicant. Along
with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was
transferred to this bench, and on the very first date (28.03.2026), after
traversing through the previous record, I directed the application to be listed
before the same bench where it was heard partly. Accordingly, it was placed
before the same learned Single Judge, but there the learned senior counsel
for accused/applicant submitted that this is not a part heard matter, so the
application was sent back to this bench and the same has been listed today.

3. As against the above backdrop, I have heard learned senior counsel
for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Lakhan.

4. At the outset, I must deprecate conduct on the part of the investigating
agency in this case, as misleading status report dated 28.07.2025 was filed
by Mr. Keshav Mathur, ACP, EOW, Delhi making reference to certain audio
conversations recorded between the victim and the accused/applicant. On
being called upon to play those audio recordings in court, the IO/SI Lakhan
stated that those audio recordings pertain to co-accused and not to the
present accused/applicant. But no explanation has been advanced as to why
that reference was made related to the present status report qua the present
accused/applicant.

5. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is that the accused/applicant

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 2 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:27:12 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44


Rishabh impersonated as Shaurya and cheated the complainant de facto lady
and her daughter multiple times, inducing them to pay money under
different pretexts, such as arranging a government job for children of the
complainant de facto, arranging tenders in MTNL, BMW and Google, apart
from investment in companies. Besides, in the name of getting daughter of
the complainant de facto married, money was received by the
accused/applicant. Not only this, the accused/applicant even collected
money from the complainant de facto in the name of a surgery which his
nephew had to undergo in Australia, followed by death of that nephew and
loan of brother-in-law of the accused/applicant to be paid back. Further, the
accused/applicant also took money from the complainant de facto under the
pretext of bringing the dead body of his father from Australia. According to
prosecution, the WhatsApp chats between the accused/applicant and the
complainant de facto as well as audio recordings of conversations in
addition to the bank statements of the accused/applicant establish the
offences alleged.

6. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that the
prosecution case does not inspire confidence insofar as it is not believable
that a person would allow herself to be cheated so many times on so many
different pretexts. Something more than what meets the eye exists in this
case according to learned senior counsel. Further, it is contended that out of
05 persons named as accused in this case, 04 were not arrested and it is only
the accused/applicant who was arrested and suffers incarceration. Learned
senior counsel submits that the accused/applicant got arrested on 21.07.2023

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 3 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:27:00 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44


and the maximum sentence that can be imposed under Section 420 IPC
( under which the chargesheet was filed ), being 07 years imprisonment, the
rd
accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3 period in jail, so in terms of
order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re:-
Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons , [Writ Petition (Civil) 406/2013], as
well as law laid down by this court in the case of Suleman Samad vs State
of NCT of Delhi, Bail Application 766/2025, the accused/applicant deserves
to be granted bail. Further, it is contended by learned senior counsel that the
alleged cheating transactions took place in the year 2016-17 but the FIR
came to be registered only in the year 2021 and there is no explanation of
this delay. Lastly, it is contended that even the WhatsAPP chats referred to
by prosecution do not involve the present accused/applicant.

7. On the other hand, learned prosecutor assisted by the IO as well as
complainant de facto and her counsel opposes the bail application,
contending that the amount cheated by the accused/applicant is quite high,
so he does not deserve bail. It is also contended that the accused/applicant
could be arrested only after he was declared Proclaimed Offender, so it
would not be safe to release him on bail. As regards the audio conversation
mentioned above, learned APP submits that the same was between the
complainant de facto and co-accused Pankaj, but Pankaj has not been
arrested so far. As regards the WhatsApp chats, it is explained by the IO that
the same was between the complainant de facto and Shaurya; and that the
mobile phone used belonged to one Dilip, who stated that he gave the same
to the present accused/applicant to use, and it is the accused/applicant, who

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 4 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:26:50 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44


came to receive that amount in cash from the complainant de facto .
However, as regards the period of incarceration, it is not denied that the
accused/applicant is in jail since 21.07.2023 and charges are yet to be
framed.

8. From the aforesaid, many questions arise about the conduct of the
investigating agency. It remains unexplained as to why out of 05 accused
persons, only one was arrested. As recorded in the chargesheet itself ( pages
66-67 of paperbook ) , it is co-accused Nitin who impersonated himself as
CBI Sub Inspector and extorted money from the complainant de facto under
the pretext of getting back her allegedly cheated money from the present
accused/applicant. Further, it is recorded in the chargesheet that the co-
accused Nitin even forged an identity card to represent himself as CBI Sub
Inspector. But Nitin has not been arrested so far. For that matter, as
mentioned above, even Pankaj has not been arrested so far. Of course, it is
the prerogative of the investigator to arrest or not to arrest an accused. But in
the factual matrix of the present kind, such conduct on the part of the
investigating agency raises unanswered questions, to say the least. That too
in the light of the above mentioned observations that the status report was
misleading while making reference to audio recordings, which today are
stated to be not concerning the present accused/applicant.

9. In the above backdrop, argument of learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant is that the manner in which the prosecution story unfolds
presents a picture that is not believable. But that must be tested only by trial

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 5 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:26:40 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44


court on the basis of evidence adduced. However, for present purposes, the
argument is significant.

10. Most important is the period of incarceration already undergone by
the accused/applicant, especially in the light of the status of proceedings
where till date even charges have not been framed and rather supplementary
investigation is being carried out. Admittedly, the accused/applicant is a first
time offender and has never been convicted of any offence in the past. The
rd
accused/applicant has spent more than 1/3 of the maximum imposable
sentence of 07 years incarceration in jail, so Section 479 BNSS comes into
play.

11. In the case of In Re:- Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (supra)
the Supreme Court issued specific directions, as extracted below:

“4. In that view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct
immediate implementation of Section 479 of the BNSS by calling
upon Superintendents of Jails across the country wherever
accused persons are detained as undertrials, to process their
applications to the concerned Courts upon their completion of
one-half/one-third, as the case may be, of the period mentioned
in sub-section (1) of the said provision, for their release on bail.
This step will go a long way in easing overcrowding in jails
which is the primary focus of this Court in the present petition.
5. The aforesaid steps shall be taken as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within two months from today. Reports shall
be submitted by the Superintendent Jails to their respective
Heads of the Department within the same time line for a
comprehensive affidavit to be filed by each State
Government/Union Territory through their respective Chief
Secretaries. The affidavits shall furnish the details of the number
of undertrials who would be entitled to extension of the benefit
of Section 479 of the BNSS, the number of applications moved

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 6 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:26:30 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


before the concerned Courts for their release and the number of
undertrials actually released by the date of filing of the
affidavits.”

12. Further, a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Suleman
Samad (supra) also took the same view, observing thus:

“8. In this background, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant argues that the applicant has now remained in judicial
custody for more than 2 years and 04 months and he is now
entitled to grant of bail in view of Section 479 of BNSS, 2023. It
is also contended that the applicant is 60 years old and suffering
from certain medical ailments and the trial is proceeding at a
slow place.
9. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that
the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature.
However, he fairly submits that the applicant has undergone
more than 1/3rd of the maximum punishment which he may be
awarded upon conviction.
…
12. Concededly, the applicant herein has undergone more than
1/3rd of the maximum imprisonment that he may be awarded for
the alleged offences, i.e. more than 02 years and 04 months, as
against maximum permissible sentence of 07 years for offence
under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The learned APP for
the State has also fairly conceded that the applicant is entitled to
grant of bail in view of Section 479 of BNSS.”

13. Considering the above circumstances, especially the mandate of
Section 479 BNSS, I do not find any reason to further deprive liberty to the
accused/applicant.

14. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is
directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 7 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:26:20 -07'00'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified


of the Trial Court.

15. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

15.1 Also, I find force in the submission of learned senior counsel for
accused/applicant that despite specific directions of the Supreme Court
extracted above, so many first time offender prisoners (who have never
been convicted of any offence in the past) are languishing in jails even
rd
after suffering incarceration for a period 1/3 or at times even more than
that of the maximum period for which they can be sentenced . It is
submitted by learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that the jail
authorities should strictly comply with the above noted directions of the
Supreme Court . That being so, as suggested by learned senior counsel, copy
of this order be sent to all Principal District and Sessions Judges as well as
the Director General (Prisons), Delhi with the directions to ensure strict
compliance of the above mentioned directions of the Supreme Court. A
copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, DHCLSC as well as to the
Member Secretary, DLSA with the directions to take up such matters so
that directions of the Supreme Court in this regard are complied with, in
the letter and spirit .
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801
e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.13 05:26:07 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA


GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 13, 2026/ ry

BAIL APPLN. 2071/2025 Page 8 of 8 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:13.04.2026
17:28:44