Yogesh Sharma vs State Govt Of Nct Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No.DLHC011083202025
BAIL APPLN. 83/2026
+
YOGESH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Saivi Kumar
and Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State
along with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regular
bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surksha Sanhita, 2023
(‘BNSS’) in FIR No. 142/2018, under Section(s) 409/420/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at P.S. Economic Offences
Wing (‘EOW’), Delhi.
2. The Bail application (bearing Bail Matter No. 1931/2025) seeking
regular bail or in the alternative, interim bail on medical grounds was
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-08 (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi vide order dated 12.12.2025. The order, with reference to the
prayer for regular bail inter alia reads as under:
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
3. With regards to the prayer for interim bail on medical grounds, the
order dated 12.12.2025 observed as follows:
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
4. The relevant facts are as under:
(a) A company named Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd. which is in the
business of real estate development advertised a real estate project in
2013 called ‘Big Bull Aashiana’ at Chandwaji, NH-8, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. The complainant and other investors had purchased plots
in the year 2013 and as per the pre-allotment letter, the possession
was promised within 20 months. The petitioner and his brothers,
Chetan Sharma and Satya Narayan Sharma, were directors of Big Bull
Infrastructure Ltd.
(b) The prosecution case is that the company was never in the
possession of the land, and obtained no permission for its
development and did not refund its investors money. The petitioner
was arrested on 11.01.2019.
(c) On 27.11.2019, this Court admitted the petitioner to interim
bail in BAIL APPLN No. 1557/2019 (Annexure P4), till 10.02.2020,
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
after he entered into a settlement with the complainants before the
Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (DHCMCC).
5. By order dated 03.05.2023, in BAIL APPLN. NO. 1557/2019, this
Court declined regular bail and vacated the interim relief. It was, inter alia ,
observed as under:
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
6. Despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner did not surrender and he
was declared a “proclaimed offender”. Thereafter, on 03.11.2023, FIR No.
83/2023 under Section 174A IPC was registered against him at P.S EOW for
being a “proclaimed person”.
7. The petitioner was re-arrested only on 24.09.2025. In the meanwhile,
the co-accused, Chetan Sharma, whose application for anticipatory bail,
being BAIL APPLN. 3340/2023, had been dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 16.10.2023, approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl)
No. 10220/2024. Vide order dated 29.07.2024, he was granted ad-interim
protection, thereafter, by order dated 15.10.2024; the interim protection was
made absolute.
8. Importantly, the order dated 15.10.2024 records the statement made
on behalf of the state that the said accused had joined the investigation and
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
the submission of the complainants, as follows:
9. Taking note of the apprehension, the Supreme Court imposed
additional conditions including depositing of his passport, regular
appearance before the Trial Court, and that upon three consecutive absences
the interim protection granted to him may be cancelled by the Trial Court.
10. On 14.09.2026, this Court in BAIL APPLN. 82/2026 granted bail to
the petitioner in FIR No. 83/2023 under Section 174 A IPC, noting that
charges have been framed in that case on 01.08.2026. He remained in
custody in the present FIR.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
in custody for an aggregate period of almost two years and the trial is
unlikely to conclude soon. He further submits that the petitioner is suffering
from a neurological condition, requiring treatment. It is pointed out that the
petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 22.8 lakhs with the Registrar General
of this Court in February, 2022 towards refund and that the co-accused,
Chetan Sharma has been granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court and
that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief on parity.
12. Learned APP for the State as also the complainant, oppose the present
petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in the case,
involving several investors. They further contend that the petitioner was
released in 2019 on his promise to refund the investors/complainant, but he
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
did not do so and he absconded after the interim bail was vacated and
remained proclaimed offender for two years.
REASONING & CONCLUSION
13. No doubt, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”. This Court is,
however, bound to consider the nature and gravity of the accusation. The,
prima facie case, whether the accused has absconded or is likely to abscond,
and the danger of justice being thwarted by the accused. In this regard,
reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case
of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee , (2010) 14 SCC 496, as
follows:
“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable.
It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed
by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well
settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”
14. This Court considering the totality of circumstances finds that the
present case is not the one which entitles the petitioner to grant of bail. It is
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
noticed that the present case is not one where the accused is seeking liberty
for the first time, the petitioner had been released by this Court in 2019, for a
specific purpose i.e. to refund the investors in terms of the settlement he had
himself entered into. Over the next three and a half years, he gave
undertakings to this Court and did not honour them.
15. There are other aspects of the petitioner’s conduct which are quite
disturbing. The petitioner did not surrender despite the categorical directions
contained in the order dated 03.05.2023 in terms of which he was required to
surrender before the Trial Court on 09.05.2023. He was consequently
declared a “proclaimed offender” and a separate FIR was registered against
him, as mentioned aforesaid.
16. He was apprehended on 24.09.2025, after almost two and a half years
later. As such, the present case is not a case of mere apprehension of flight.
The petitioner has, in fact, blatantly evaded the process of this Court. The
risk that he will not face trial, if he is released, is therefore real and
demonstrated.
17. No doubt, the custody period of almost two years is not insignificant,
however, the present spell of custody is a direct consequence of the
petitioner’s own failure to surrender in the May, 2023.
18. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies
upon the judgment Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 , where Supreme Court held that the offences of
criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot co-exist, in the same sets of
facts as they are antithetical to each other.
19. It is noticed that the said decision was rendered in quashing
proceedings arising out of an agreement for sale of property, wherein the
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
Supreme Court, on the allegations in that case, quashed the proceedings
upon finding that no offence was made out. The same, however, does not
assist the petitioner, for (i) the proposition, at its highest, bears on which of
the two offences is disclosed by the facts; it does not suggest that no offence
is disclosed by the allegation that several investors were induced to pay for
plots in a project on land which the company did not possess. Which offence
is made out is a question for the Trial Court to decide at the stage of charge;
and (ii) in a bail application, this Court is loath to undertake a detailed merit
based examination of the charges, which is reserved for trial.
20. Even if the petitioner is tried only under Section 420 of the IPC, the
outcome of the present application would be same. Further there are
multiple grounds which warrant denial of bail, namely, breach of
undertakings on the basis of which he was released and his subsequent
abscondence. These operate independently of the provision under which he
is tried.
21. Equally misconceived is the petitioner’s plea for the parity with co-
accused. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to accused Chetan
Sharma on the basis that he had joined the investigation. The facts and
circumstances are quite unlike the present case.
22. As noticed, the order dated 15.10.2024, passed by the Supreme Court
itself records the complainants’ grievance that the other accused were
granted bail and have jumped bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court
specifically imposed additional conditions as set out hereinabove.
23. Importantly, during the course of hearing, it is contended by a
complainant that the co-accused Chetan Sharma and Satya Narayan Sharma,
who are on bail, have not been personally appearing before the Trial Court.
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03
This Court does not examine that grievance in the present application. It is
for trial Court to take appropriate steps in this regard. The submission,
however, underlines that the risk of the present accused absconding, is not a
theoretical one.
24. As far as the prayer for interim bail on medical ground is concerned, it
is noted that the medical status report dated 16.02.2026 of the senior medical
officer, Central Jail No. 1, Tihar, shows that the petitioner’s general
condition is stable, he is receiving anti-seizure medication, his MRI Brain
was conducted on 24.12.2025 and there has been no episodes of seizure
reported in the recent past. Nothing has been placed on record to show that
the treatment which the petitioner requires cannot be provided in custody.
25. In the circumstances, BAIL APPLN. 83/2026, is dismissed. However,
the Jail Superintendent is directed to ensure that the petitioner continues to
receive the medical treatment that has been advised for him including
necessary follow ups at the hospital during treatment.
26. The petitioner shall be entitled to renew prayer for bail after the
material prosecution witnesses have been examined or if the trial does not
materially progress within six months from today for reasons not attributable
to him.
27. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
28. The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
at/ka
OCTOBER 28, 2026/
BAIL. APPLN. 83/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
19:28:03