Aditya Kumar vs The State Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 28 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010462552026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4084/2026
ADITYA KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Z.U. Khan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
A.C. David, Mr. Abhay Raj Verma,
Mr. Arvind, Mr. Mazhar Khan, Mr.
Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Vinky James,
Advs.
versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State
Mob: 9868632122
Mr. Rajat Malik, SI, PS Dwarka(S)

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral) :

nd
1. The present 02 (second) bail application has been filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”),
seeking grant of regular bail on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Aditya
Kumar S/o Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, in connection with the First Information
th
Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 255/2025, dated 07 June, 2025, under
Sections 318(4)/316/61(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(“BNS”), registered at Police Station (“PS”) Dwarka South, Dwarka, Delhi.
2. The relevant facts pertinent for the adjudication of the present
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 1 of 9

application, culled out from the documents on record, are as follows:
th
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered on 07 June, 2025, at PS
Dwarka South, Dwarka, Delhi, pursuant to a complaint made by Lt. Colonel
Shatrughan Singh, i.e., father of the victim daughter, alleging that petitioner
herein along with his father and other associates had entered into a criminal
conspiracy to cheat and had dishonestly induced his daughter to invest
approximately Rs. 39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lacs Only) and had
subsequently threatened them when repayment was demanded.
th
2.2. It is alleged that on 10 November, 2024, her daughter, without
informing her family members, visited the residence of the petitioner to seek
repayment of her invested money. However, the petitioner and his father
allegedly abused her, threatened with dire consequences if she ever came to
their residence again, and physically manhandled and pushed her out of their
flat.
2.3. It is further alleged that, upon repeated demands for repayment, and in
view of the complainant’s social standing and position as a serving Gazetted
Officer in the Indian Army, petitioner and his father issued two post-dated
cheques towards repayment of the invested amount out of which one of the
said cheque bearing no. 062731, drawn on the Union Bank of India, dated
rd
03 March, 2025, for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs
th
Only). The said cheque was deposited on 13 March, 2025, however, the
same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.
th
2.4. Thereafter, on 16 March, 2025, upon being contacted by the
complainant regarding the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque, the
petitioner’s father threatened him to take whatever action he deemed
appropriate and further claimed to be in possession of a blank paper bearing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 2 of 9

the signature of the complainant’s daughter, which he could use whenever
he wants.
2.5. During search of the accused, neither the petitioner nor his father
could be found. Accordingly, Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued
th
against them. The petitioner was formally arrested on 17 September, 2025,
when he appeared before the Trial Court seeking cancellation of the NBWs.
2.6. During investigation, recordings of conversation between the
petitioner and the complainant, and of another victim along with bank
statements of the complainant and other victims were examined wherein it
was found that the petitioner had initially transferred amounts to certain
victims to gain their confidence. However, the petitioner failed to produce
any documents establishing actual investment of the amounts received or the
existence of the purported online portfolio scheme.
2.7. Upon completion of the investigation, a Final Report/Chargesheet
th
dated 13 November, 2025, was filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”)
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (“JMFC”), South-West District,
Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
2.8. The petitioner had earlier filed 08 (eight) bail applications before the
Trial Court, all of which were dismissed.
2.9. The petitioner had earlier also preferred a bail application before this
Court, i.e., BAIL APPL. 635/2026 , which was dismissed as withdrawn vide
th
order dated 08 July, 2026.
3. The role attributed to the petitioner in the Chargesheet, are as follows:
3.1. The accused Aditya Kumar, who was previously acquainted with the
complainant’s daughter, Manya Singh, through their school, allegedly
gained her confidence and, in July 2024, induced her to invest money in a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 3 of 9

purported investment scheme. He represented that he and his father were
engaged in share market and Forex trading and could multiply the invested
amount within a short period.
3.2. He allegedly persuaded the complainant’s daughter to keep the
investment scheme secret from her family, assuring her that she could later
surprise her parents with the substantial profits earned from the investment.
3.3. In order to gain the confidence of complainant’s daughter and other
investors, he allegedly showed them fabricated screenshots and bogus demat
account statements reflecting substantial profits and transactions, thereby
creating the impression that their investments were generating high returns.
3.4. He allegedly induced other persons, including college students and
their family members, to invest money by promising substantial returns,
including 100% returns, and representing that the money would be invested
in share market, intraday and Forex trading.
3.5. Between July 2024 and October 2024, he allegedly received
approximately Rs. 39 lakhs (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lacs) from the
complainant’s daughter in his bank account. He also allegedly received
substantial amounts from other victims, through various bank accounts and
intermediaries.
3.6. He allegedly continued to send WhatsApp messages and show
fabricated account screenshots to the investors to represent that their money
had been invested in trading and was generating profits. Whenever
repayment was demanded, he allegedly postponed it on one pretext or
another, including the completion of trading and withdrawal formalities.
3.7. When the complainant’s daughter questioned him about the
investment and demanded repayment, he allegedly abused and threatened
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 4 of 9

th
her. Further, on 10 November, 2024, he, along with his father, allegedly
manhandled her and pushed her out of their residence.
3.8. He, along with his father, allegedly assured the complainant that the
invested amount would be returned in instalments. In this regard, he issued
rd
cheque bearing no. 062731, dated 03 March, 2025, for an amount of Rs. 20
lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only), drawn on Union Bank of India, which was
th
dishonoured on 04 March, 2025, due to insufficiency of funds.
4. The Criminal Case, being CR Cases 13302/2025, in connection with
the present FIR is pending adjudication before the JMFC-04, South-West
District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of prosecution
evidence.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
th
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17 September, 2025, and has
undergone more than one year of incarceration.
6. He submits that the investigation has already been completed and the
chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed.
7. He further submits that the petitioner is a young man, who is presently
pursuing his final year of Bachelor of Commerce (“B.Com.”) Programme
and has secured admission to the Chartered Accountancy (“CA”) Course
and is diligently pursuing his academic studies.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already returned the full
amount of the loan to the complainant.
9. With regard to the charges, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been discharged from the offences of criminal breach
of trust and criminal intimidation, and that the only charge remaining against
him is with regard to cheating.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 5 of 9

10. Thus, he submits that the regular bail may be granted to the petitioner.
11. Per contra, the present bail application is vehemently opposed by
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State.
12. He submits that there is not 01 (One) complainant, but the petitioner
has cheated other young girls also, total 06 (Six) in number.
13. He further submits that the total amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- (Rupees
Seventy-Two Lacs Only) has been cheated by the petitioner.
14. Having heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties, at the outset,
this Court notes the submission made by the learned APP for the State that
there are multiple victims, who all are young girls, who have been cheated
by the petitioner on the ground of investment and higher returns.
15. Learned APP for the State has also shown the original file, wherein,
statements of the victims have been recorded.
16. The statements clearly show that the petitioner has been cheating
gullible persons of their hard earned money.
17. It is also to be noted that, as per the Chargesheet, there are total 16
(sixteen) prosecution witnesses in the present case, and none of the
witnesses have been examined as yet.
18. At this stage, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of
Rakesh Mittal Versus Ajay Pal Gupta, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 211 , wherein,
the Supreme Court has made the following observations:
“xxx xxx xxx
15. We are also conscious of the fact that this is not a case of
cancellation of bail but a challenge to the validity of an order
granting bail. Even in cases of cancellation of bail, the power to do
so is not just limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances as
the Court has the inherent power and discretion to cancel the bail of
an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 6 of 9

(See Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana). One of the grounds
enumerated therein, as relevant for exercise of such power, is where
the past criminal record and the conduct of the accused are
completely ignored while granting bail.
16. Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh was a case where bail
had been granted to a history-sheeter, charge-sheeted for a number
of heinous offences, on the ground of parity. Observing that liberty is
a priceless treasure for a human being and is a cardinal value on
which civilization rests, this Court cautioned that liberty of an
individual would however not be absolute as society, by its collective
wisdom and through the process of law, can withdraw liberty that
has been sanctioned to an individual when such an individual
becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. It was
further observed that the High Court must exercise its discretion
cautiously and when there is likelihood of offences being repeated
or there is a danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail, these
are factors which should be taken into consideration while dealing
with an application for bail. It was further observed that
cancellation of bail if the accused misconducted himself or due to
some intervening circumstances is in a different compartment
altogether from examination of an order granting bail which was
unjustified, illegal or perverse. It was held that, if in a case, the
relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration
while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note
of or it is founded on irrelevant considerations; indisputably, the
superior court can set aside such a bail order. Per this Court, such a
case would belong to a different category and in a separate realm,
as it delves into the justifiability and soundness of the order passed
by the Court.
17. Again, in Neeru Yadav v. State of UP, this Court observed that a
crime, though committed against an individual, may not retain an
individual character as the victim may be an individual but, in the
ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. Further,
observing that a crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law-
and-order situation and disturbs orderliness, this Court held that
an individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount
value but he cannot be a law unto himself and he cannot cause
harm to others. It was held that an individual cannot be a nuisance
to the collective or a terror to the society. Reference was made to the
observations of E. Barrett Prettyman, Chief Judge of the US Court of
Appeals (Retired), which read thus: -
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 7 of 9

“In an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as
unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty
itself is the product of restraints; it is inherently a composite of
restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn. Freedom, I say,
is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints.
There is no liberty without order. There is no order without
systematised restraint. Restraints are the substance without
which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The
great problem of the democratic process is not to strip men of
restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem
is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the
maximum development of man's capabilities, not in a massive
globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realisation, of each
separate human mind, soul and body; not in mute, motionless
meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity.”
Noting that the High Court, in that case, had totally ignored the
criminal antecedents of the accused and what had weighed with
the High Court was only the doctrine of parity, this Court set
aside the bail granted to the accused therein.
18. In Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court was dealing with the validity of a bail order passed in
favour of an alleged contract killer. This Court found that the High
Court had simply ignored the criminal antecedents of that accused.
It was observed that though liberty is important, even that of a
person charged with crime, it is equally important for the Courts to
recognize the potential threat to life and liberty of
victims/witnesses, if such an accused is released on bail .
19. Though the observations made in some of the above cases were
in the context of heinous offences, which is not the case presently, we
may note that the value of life and liberty of members of society is
not limited only to their ‘person’ but would also extend to the quality
of their life, including their economic well-being. In offences of a
pecuniary nature, where innocent people are cheated of their hard-
earned monies by conmen, who make it their life's pursuit to
exploit and feast upon the gullibility of others, the aforestated
factors must necessarily be weighed while dealing with the alleged
offenders’ pleas for grant of bail.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 8 of 9

19. Perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations of cheating against the
petitioner are serious in nature, particularly in view of the multiple victims
and the alleged amount involved. Further, trial in the matter is at nascent
stage, and none of the witnesses, including the complainant, has been
examined yet.
20. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
evidence in the present case with regard to cheating is documentary in
nature and already in possession of the IO, is a matter of trial and this Court
will not go into the merits of this case at this stage.
21. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstance of the present
case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the present stage of the trial,
this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for grant of regular
bail.
22. The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ SK




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
16:20:17
Page 9 of 9