Jalaj Batra vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 08.04.2026
Judgment delivered on: 04.05.2026


+ CRL.M.C. 682/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3273/2025
JALAJ BATRA .....Petitioner

versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent

Memo of Appearance
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prasouk Jain,
Ms. Rabiya Thakur, Mr. Nikhil Joshi and Mr. Vignesh,
Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, SPP for CBI with Mr. Prakarsh
Airan and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT

MANOJ JAIN, J
1. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against 34 accused persons.
Petitioner herein is shown as A-2 therein. He is aggrieved by order dated
1
27.04.2024 whereby learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of offences
and summoned him and others.
2. Let me narrate factual matrix, in brief.
2
3. An FIR was registered on 20.06.2022.
4. It emanated from one complaint lodged by Mr. Vipin Kumar Shukla,
Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India. Such complaint was

1
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-08, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi
2
RC No. 2242022A0001
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 1 of 17

3
directed against DHFL and 12 others and as per allegations, Mr. Kapil
4 5
Wadhawan , Mr. Dheeraj Rajesh Kumar Wadhawan , Mr. Sudhakar Shetty,
M/s Amaryllis Realtors LLP, M/s Gulmarg Realtors LLP along with other
companies, individuals and public servants entered into a “ criminal
conspiracy ” to cheat the Consortium of 17 Banks, led by Union Bank of
India.
5. It was alleged that pursuant to criminal conspiracy, the Consortium
Banks were induced to sanction and disburse huge loan amount aggregating
to Rs. 42,000 crores approximately. The promoters of DHFL created entities
in the names of their associates, friends and employees and used these
entities as “ vehicles to divert the funds ”. As many as 87 shell companies
were created and amount was diverted and siphoned off to those companies,
without any formal process and in violation of applicable policies. Books of
Accounts were also falsified. Thus, loan amount was misappropriated and
wrongful loss of Rs. 34,000 crores was caused to Consortium Banks during
January 2010 to December, 2019.
6. Main charge-sheet was filed on 15.10.2022 for commission of
6
offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 409/420/477A IPC read
7
with Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act .
7. It was directed against 75 persons (18 individuals and 57 companies).
8. Name of petitioner did not figure therein. M/s DHFL was also not
charge-sheeted as it had already been taken over by Piramal Capital
Housing Finance Limited and thus got immunity from prosecution, in terms

3
M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.
4
Chairman and Managing Director of DHFL
5
Director of DHFL
6
Indian Penal Code, 1860
7
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 2 of 17

8
of Section 32A of IBC .
9. However, since further investigation was going on, the abovesaid
supplementary charge-sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court on
18.04.2024. It was directed against 34 new accused persons (including the
petitioner herein) for offences 120-B/206/409/411/420/424/465/468/477A
IPC & Section 11,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act.
10. Let me, now, consider the averments appearing against the petitioner
in such supplementary charge-sheet.
9

11. During the year 2017, Sh. Kapil Wadhawan wanted to do QIP to
raise Rs. 3000 crores as equity for DHFL. He discussed proposal with few
institutional investors including M/s T.K. Capital but they were not ready for
the placement at the price quoted by such investors. Therefore, in order to
project sound financial position of the company contrary vis-à-vis the actual
status, it was decided to enhance the trade volume and the value of the
DHFL shares in the stock market, so that based on such false projection, the
investment is made in DHFL. To achieve such objective, Kapil Wadhawan
was introduced to Sh. Jalaj Batra, a stock broker by Sh. Nimir Mehta . Sh.
Jalaj Batra, thereafter, further introduced Kapil Wadhawan to Sh. Ravindra
Biyani, a stock broker and Sh. Rajesh Mehta, a financer. Sh. Kapil
Wadhawan discussed the matter with petitioner, Sh. Ravindra Biyani and
Sh. Rajesh Mehta and it was decided that Kapil Wadhawan would fund the
trading of shares of DHFL through Sh. Rajesh Mehta and would provide
margin money required for such trade. Sh. Jalaj Batra and Sh. Ravindra
Biyani would use that money themselves or through the stock operators

8
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

9
Qualified Institutional Placement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 3 of 17

under them to trade in the shares of M/ s DHFL. Accordingly, the funds
from DHFL were routed to the stock brokers/ persons trading in various
companies, owned/ controlled by Sh. Rajesh Mehta.
12. Rs. 1293.82 crores were transferred to the accounts of Rajesh Mehta
Group Companies by accused Kapil Wadhawan through DHFL/entities
owned/ controlled by DHFL. Out of the said amount, Rs. 279.50 crores were
remitted back to the accounts of M/ s DHFL; Rs. 275 crores were transferred
into the accounts of other Wadhawan group companies; Rs. 50 crores were
transferred into the account of HDIL. However, the remaining amount of Rs.
689.32 crores was transferred into the accounts of various stock
brokers/entities for manipulating the share prices of DHFL by way of
targeted trading in the shares of M/s DHFL at the behest of Wadhawan
brothers. The petitioner was instrumental in trading which was being carried
out to jack up the price of share of DHFL. He also traded in the shares of
DHFL through M/s Narayan Securities Ltd . (of Sh. Ramesh Saraf) and M/s
Arcadia.
13. The share price though increased, eventually, it saw a steep decline on
21.09.2018.
14. This decline in the share prices of DHFL led to severe losses to the
persons/brokers/ traders who were trading in the shares of DHFL in
furtherance of said conspiracy. It was decided to compensate them by
allotting flats in Liv Smart Project at Kurla, Mumbai. This project was being
developed by Sh. Dinesh Bansal through M/s D.K. Realty India Pvt. Ltd .
Both Sh. Dinesh Bansal and M/s D.K. Realty India Pvt. Ltd. have been
arraigned as accused in the main charge sheet.
15. That the investigation revealed that Sh. Jalaj Batra, Sh. Ravindra
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 4 of 17

Biyani , Sh. Pranav Vora, Sh. Rakesh Rathi, Sh. Arvind Kayan, Sh. Ramesh
Chandra Saraf and Sh. Abhay Adukia conspired with Sh. Kapil Wadhawan
and Sh. Rajesh Mehta (since expired) and traded in the shares of DHFL
using the funds diverted from DHFL, routed though the companies of Sh.
Rajesh Mehta and others.
16. Thus, they actively facilitated diversion of funds from M/ s DHFL for
its utilization in trade of shares of DHFL for the ultimate objective of Kapil
Wadhawan to enhance the trade volume and share price of DHFL shares to
project its sound financial position in the market so as to induce lender
banks and investors.
17. Learned Trial Court, after perusal of the matter, came to the
conclusion that there existed sufficient grounds to summon the accused
persons named in the chargesheet. Accused no. 17, a public servant, was,
however, no summoned for want of sanction.
18. Rest of the accused have been summoned.
19. Such order of taking cognizance against them is under challenge.
20. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submits that
the impugned order is mechanical in nature and there was no material on
record suggesting any involvement or complicity of the petitioner.
According to him, as per the main charge-sheet, Wadhawan Brothers had
induced Consortium Banks to obtain loan and conspired to siphon off the
same. Such loan was taken way back in the year 2010 and at the time of
sanction of the loan or during the period when the loan amount was
siphoned off, petitioner was nowhere in the picture and the conspiracy was
already over. The story of jacking up the share value is afterthought and
artificial one and petitioner had no association of any nature whatsoever
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 5 of 17

with Rajesh Mehta, Ravindra Biyani, Sudhir Jain, Abhishek Kayan or
Ramesh Saraf. Even if such story is believed, it does not make him co-
conspirator as there was neither any meeting of minds nor petitioner is stated
to be beneficiary.
21. According to him, petitioner was merely a financial advisor by
profession who worked in Mining Industries and, later, became hotelier. He
had nothing to do with stock-trading ever since he was debarred in the year
2006. Though such debarment was cancelled in the year 2016, he did not
enter into any transaction as he did not have broker or demat account and,
therefore, had no occasion to carry out any transaction and to manipulate the
stock price. Moreover, petitioner is residing in Dubai every since 2006 with
his family and story projected by the prosecution is false and unbelievable.
22. He contends that despite the alleged jacking up, there were huge
losses which compelled several such brokers to seek compensation and as
many as 214 flats were allotted to different persons/entities, to make up such
loss. Petitioner was neither working for Wadhawan Brothers nor for any of
their alleged associates and no allotment of any flat was made to him which
also indicates that he had no connection or involvement. Thus, common
thread of conspiracy is conspicuously missing. Reference has also been
made to the testimony of several witnesses in order to show that even if their
statements are accepted to be true, these do not pinpoint any wrongdoing on
the part of the petitioner. It is also argued that CBI has adopted a pick and
choose policy and the persons, who had some active role in artificially
jacking up the price, have been made witnesses whereas petitioner, who is
not concerned with the conspiracy and to whom no role has been attributed,
has been made accused. Learned Senior Counsel places his reliance upon
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 6 of 17

10
Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H Chanchani & Anr. , Pepsi Foods
11
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others , A.P. Narang v. CBI
12 13 14
(DHC) , Vikas Jain v. State (Through CBI) , John Pandian v. State
15
and Esher Singh v. State of A.P. .
23. All such contentions have been refuted.
24. Mr. Anupam Sharrma, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
submits that there was comprehensive transaction audit of the accounts of
16
DHFL by KPMG and thereafter only the case was registered. DHFL
obtained credit facilities and got sanctioned loan of huge amount and did not
use such loan amount for the mandated purpose. Such amount was rather
siphoned off by, inter alia, transferring to some shell companies for its own
use and purpose. Funds were diverted to shell companies without any
documentation and to falsify the record, these funds were shown to have
been given to 2,60,315 fictitious persons as retail loan. In order to cover up
the blatant divergent of funds, accused Kapil Wadhawan decided to have
fresh funds/investment in DHFL. However, in view of the low share price
and trade volume of DHFL on stock-exchange, he was finding it difficult to
bring in fresh investment. To enhance the share price and trade volume of
17
DHFL and to have QIP , he came in contact of petitioner and then it was
conspired that the shares of DHFL would be got traded through different
stock brokers to be engaged and arranged by petitioner and Ravindra Biyani.

10
1998(7) SCC 698
11
(1998) 5 SCC 749
12
(2011) SCC OnLine Del 212
13
2006 SCC OnLine Del 1558
14
(2010) 14 SCC 129
15
(2004) 11 SCC 585
16
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, a global firm providing audit, tax, and advisory services.
17
qualified institutional placement
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 7 of 17

Accused Kapil Wadhawan decided to provide margin money required for
trade using the companies of Rajesh Mehta and in order to achieve the
aforesaid objective, a sum of Rs. 1293.02 crores was diverted from DHFL to
the companies owned and controlled by Rajesh Mehta . He submits that
transfer of such huge amount is, in itself, sufficient to indicate the
complicity and involvement of petitioner. It is argued that statements of
various witnesses would go on to indicate that jacking up of the price was
being done, with the active connivance and participation of petitioner and he
was the one who used the ports allotted to others and thereby jacked up the
trade volume and share price, artificially. He deliberately did not do any
trade in his own name and rather traded in a clandestine manner and also in
the name of Hemant Madhusudan Seth and such facts can be deciphered
from the statements of various witnesses including Hemant Madhusudan
Seth (LW273), Jayesh Kuwadia (LW274), Nimin Mehta (LW275), Sonpal
Jain (LW24) and Yashpal Mendiratta (LW656).
25. He submits that prosecution also relies upon testimony of approvers
and very recently, Ajay Abhay Kumar Adhukia has also turned approver and
has been granted pardon and his affidavit also indicts petitioner Jalaj Batra.
He contends that since the shares were jacked up artificially, these were
bound to fail which resulted in losses to several persons to whom some flats
were promised.
26. It is contended that conspiracy is very much discernible and the case
is voluminous in nature, based on number of documents and statements of
witnesses and approvers. According to him, conspiracy is generally hatched
in secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available and in a criminal
conspiracy of existing nature, any co-conspirator would be liable for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 8 of 17

omission, commission and overt acts of the others. According to him, it is
not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of
the conspiracy as long as they cooperate one another to achieve the main
object of the conspiracy and at times, there would be novel techniques
adopted to attain common goal and there might be division of performances
in the chain of actions. He submits that the predominant aspect is to see
whether there is clear-cut unity of object and purpose and in the case in
hand, there is clear-cut material showing meeting of minds as the petitioner
had met principal offender and in terms of the agreement, funds were further
siphoned off in order to jack up the share value of DHFL. Sh. Sharrma has
18
relied upon State of Gujarant v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta , Bhushan
19
Kumar & Anr; V. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , Bhagwan Swarup Lal
20
Bishan Lal v. The State of Maharashtra , Mohd. Hussain UMar Kochra
21
etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and another , S. Swamirathnam v. State of
22 23
Madras , Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab , A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
24 25
& Anr. , Laxmipat Choraria & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , Chandran
26
@ Manichan @ Maniyan v. State of Kerala , Girish Sharma & Ors. v.
27
State of Chhattishgarh and Hariom Haji Abdulla v. State of
28
Maharashtra .
27. Evidently, the order, under challenge, is an order passed at a very

18
2019 CRI. L.J. 3366
19
AIR 2012 SC 1747 SC
20
AIR 1965 SC 682
21
AIR 1970 SC 45
22
AIR 1957 SC 340
23
AIR 1977 SC 2433
24
AIR 1988 SC 1531
25
1968 Crl. L.J. 1124
26
AIR 2011 SC 1594
27
AIR 2017 SC 4973
28
AIR 1968 SC 832
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 9 of 17

nascent stage of the case.
28. It‟s an order taking cognizance.
29. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the material disclosed in the
supplementary charge-sheet, has taken mere cognizance and at such initial
stage, generally speaking, there is no real obligation to go for in-depth
analysis and comprehensive assessment of evidence. Sh. Sharrma submits
that contentions, which have been raised herein, can always be raised by the
petitioner at the time of arguments on charge and, therefore, this Court
should dismiss the petition, right away. Relying on Afroz Mohammed
Hasanfatta , he submits that such order taking cognizance, even otherwise,
cannot be interfered by Revisional Court as it cannot go into the merits or
demerits of the case.
30. Needless to underline, cognizance does not involve any formal action.
It occurs as soon as the Court applies its mind to the suspected commission
of offence(s). At this threshold stage, the purpose is just to determine
whether there is sufficient ground for taking judicial notice of an offence,
with a view to initiate further proceedings. Unquestionably, at such stage,
Court is not required to weigh and critically evaluate the evidentiary value
of the material collected by the investigating agency. The Court merely
considers the material, albeit , with due application of mind for the abovesaid
limited purpose.
31. Cognizance is of an offence and not of the offender. Once the Court,
after application of mind, takes decision to proceed further with the matter,
it becomes duty of the Court to find out as to who are the offenders and then
to proceed against them by initiating further proceedings.
32. The impugned order is comprehensive one, apparently suggestive of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 10 of 17

application of mind and, though, there is no purpose in going into minute
evaluation, since the revisional jurisdiction has been invoked, this Court can,
at least, reassure itself whether the material placed before the learned Trial
Court disclosed initiation of further proceedings or not. To that extent, it
cannot be said that the petition is not maintainable albeit , this Court is not
required to weigh the evidentiary value of such material, meticulously and
intensively.
33. Therefore, the analysis has to be a surface-level only.

34. The case relates to criminal conspiracy.
35. Invariably, there would not be any explicit or direct evidence to
decipher the same.
36. Conspiracy, as the cliché goes, is hatched in secrecy and has to be,
most of the times, inferred.
37. Essence of conspiracy is existence of tacit agreement amongst the
accused and such agreement can be proved in many ways – by oral
evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, by inference or by
conduct. Fact, however, remains that there must be a common design and to
achieve the such common design, each conspirator may play some role or
the other and as long as there is „single conspiracy‟ which continues and
does not get terminated in the interregnum, every player, irrespective of the
role played by it, would be liable if the act is done to achieve a common
purpose and objective. To that extent, there cannot be any scope of
discussion or debate with respect to precedents cited at the Bar by both the
sides, including John Pandian v. State relied upon by the petitioner.
38. According to the averments made in the main charge-sheet, the
criminal conspiracy was to misappropriate and siphon off the huge loan
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 11 of 17

aggregating to Rs. 42,000 crores approximately. The amount was
misappropriated by deploying multiple methods, including creating shell
companies and the loss is stated to be to the tune of Rs. 34,000 crores. The
supplementary charge-sheet also suggests that the petitioner, in collusion
with his other co-accused, used dubious means to enhance the trade volume
and thereby value of DHFL share in the stock-market. It was done because
accused Kapil Wadhawan wanted to raise Rs. 3000 crores as equity for
DHFL and was not getting investors, therefore, to project a sound financial
position of the company, the petitioner and others were roped in and they
traded in the share of DHFL in order to give impression that the company
was having a sound financial position so that once the price is jacked up, the
investors are tempted to invest in the company.
39. Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP) and Initial Public
Offering (IPO) are capital-raising methods.
40. QIP allows quick capital infusion, without extensive regulatory filings
and is a faster and cheaper mode vis-à-vis IPO which is long, highly
regulated public sale of shares to all investors, including retail.
41. Therefore, accused, seemingly to cover the gap created by diversion
of funds, preferred QIP and to achieve the aforesaid objective and to attract
investors, a whopping sum of Rs. 689.32 crores was further siphoned off by
transferring the same into the accounts of several stock-brokers/entities.
42. Statements of various witnesses would indicate that petitioner was
instrumental in carrying out such trade.
43. The petitioner did not indulge in any trading in his own name and
entered into transactions in a clandestine manner. Though the supplementary
charge-sheet may indicate that the share price of DHFL, which, though
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 12 of 17

initially increased substantially, saw a steep decline on 21.09.2018 which
was simultaneous with the bond-sale, during course of the arguments, Sh.
Sharrma seemed justified in asserting that since share price had been jacked
up artificially, it was bound to fall. Due to eventual decline in the share price
of DHFL, all these brokers/traders started feeling the pinch and when
protested, they were promised allotment of certain flats, as a compensatory
measure. It does not matter whether such promised flats were given or not or
whether petitioner got any such flat or not. Fact remains that the funds of
DHFL had been diverted and utilized for artificial jacking up and such
‘diversion of funds is common feature, substratum and bedrock of the case
of prosecution - be it main charge-sheet or supplementary’. Such diversion
is consequent upon a single conspiracy. The commonality is, thus, writ
large.
44. The Court had requested learned Special PP for CBI to provide soft
complete copy of the charge-sheet i.e. main as well as supplementary. The
data being voluminous was provided in a hard disc. The averments made in
the charge-sheets and statements of various witnesses have been seen,
particularly in connection with the role of petitioner. Reference be made to
statements of Hemant Madhusudan Seth (LW 273), Jayesh Kuwadia (LW
274), Nimir Mehta (LW 275), Sonpal Jain (LW 24), LW143 Sh. Sanjay
Bansal and Yashpal Mehndiratta (LW 656).
45. These witnesses have emphasized the role of the petitioner in the
commission of offences in question. Sh. Hemant Madhusudan Seth has
stated that Sh. Jalaj Batra started trading in the shares of DHFL with the
brokers referred by him. He though introduced Sh. Jalaj Batra to Sh. Jayesh
Kuwadia and others but claimed that he was apprehensive of intention of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 13 of 17

Jalaj Batra as his reputation was not good. He also stated that it was Sh. Jalaj
Batra who offered to compensate the losses by way of allotment of flats. Sh.
Jayesh Kuwadia has stated that Sh. Jalaj Batra was trading in shares of
DHFL using the port allotted to Sh. Hemant Madhusudhan Seth by his
company and that due to further decline in the share price of DHFL, he had
asked Sh. Jalaj Batra to compensate him. Sh. Sonpal Jain has stated that Sh.
Kapil Wadhawan had told him that he has already instructed Sh. Rajesh
Mehta to purchase the shares of DHFL through some brokers namely Sh.
Ravindra Biyani, Sh. Jalaj Batra and Sh. Pranav Vora to increase the volume
of shares in BSE/NSE. Sh. Nimir Mehta has stated that he introduced Sh.
Kapil Wadhawan to Sh. Jalaj Batra. Thereafter, Sh. Jalaj Batra arranged a
meeting of Sh. Kapil Wadhawan with Sh. Ravindra Biyani, and Sh. Rajesh
Mehta. Sh. Yashpal Mendiratta has stated that DHFL/its related entities have
agreed to compensate for the losses suffered by traders/brokers as mentioned
above as the said trade was done as per their directives conveyed through
Sh. Ravindra Biyani/Sh. Jalaj Batra. He has also claimed that Sh. Jalaj Batra
was middleman, who was dealing on behalf of M/s DHFL in respect of its
stock-trading and used to arrange deals for such trading. He also claimed
that companies used to indulge in high volume of trading of their shares in
order to manage their market rating high and keep their share-price at a
certain level to give positive market outcome and to attract prospective
investors by presenting a stable financial status of the company. He also
claimed that such status used to help the company to easily borrow from the
market and financial institutions, including banks. He believed that even
DHFL did the same and for that purpose only the share transactions were
carried out. Subsequent affidavit of Abhay Adukia also contains
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 14 of 17

incriminating material against the petitioner as he claimed that petitioner
was having the control over the companies indulging in trading and that the
money transferred therein was being used for funding of the margin money
used in trading of DHFL shares and that such exercise was being carried out
at instance of Wadhawan brothers. According to Sh. Sanjay Bansal , Sh. Jalaj
Batra was working in the share market and had a reputation of making
stocks bullish and bearish and that he was working for Sh. Kapil Wadhawan
and Sh. Dheeraj Wadhawan to enhance their share trade volume on the stock
exchange and managed huge transactions in the shares of DHFL which
resulted in steep hike in the shares of DHFL which became almost double in
the first half of year 2018.
46. There does not seem to be any pick-and-choose policy as Ravindra
Biyani, Pranav Vora, Ramesh Saraf, Abhay Adukia (now granted pardon)
and Arvind Kayan have been arraigned as accused. Sh. Sharrma states that
Rajesh Mehta has already expired and, therefore, could not have been
prosecuted. He states that role of Nimir Mehta was limited and, therefore, he
has been cited as a witness. It is argued that he had no role in the trading of
the shares of DHFL and he had, merely, introduced the petitioner to Kapil
Wadhawan.
47. It is, and rightly so, contended by CBI that to decipher conspiracy and
to reach other key perpetrators, if prosecution falls back on statement of any
person who is helpful in exposing conspiracy, such approach cannot be said
to be biased or illegal. If such contention of petitioner is accepted, the
provision regarding „grant of pardon‟ and making someone approver would
stand redundant, nugatory and superfluous.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 15 of 17

48. As per material collected by the investigation agency, share price of
DHFL rose from Rs. 290 per share to Rs. 690 per share from January, 2017
to September, 2018 and on 21.09.2018, it fell to Rs. 350.55 per share from
Rs. 615.15 per share. The funds were diverted to jack up the share worth and
then to portray a rosy picture about the financial status of DHFL. The
allegations appearing against the petitioner cannot be, thus, said to be,
beyond those averred in the main charge-sheet. These are, rather,
complementing and in synchronization with the main allegations and have to
be read in conjunction with the main chargesheet. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the prosecution has come up with any new case. The common
intent, as already noticed above, was to siphon off the money and the role of
the petitioner seems quite apparent and the devious tactics employed by him
indicate him to be part of conspiracy. Sh. Sharrma contends that
manipulative and deceptive tactics of petitioner, being barred under Section
29
12 of SEBI Act , the Board has already been apprised about the same.
49. As already noted above, the impugned order, merely, takes
cognizance and in view of the averments made in the supplementary charge-
sheet and the statements of prosecution witnesses, including the ones
referred to above, it is quite evident that there existed sufficient material to
proceed further with the matter. Therefore, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
50. Undoubtedly, the scope of consideration would be broader when the
Court embarks upon ascertainment of charges. At that particular stage,
learned Trial Court would, naturally, go for deeper evaluation. Such

29
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 16 of 17

exercise, certainly, would be without prejudice to the observations made
hereinabove.
51. Before parting, this Court would also like to mention about the
conduct of the petitioner.
52. According to CBI, there are several other cases against the petitioner
and he, on one pretext or the other, continues to stay abroad and has not
even appeared once before the learned Trial Court and has not even cared to
submit bail-bonds. According to Mr. Sharrma, he is using his living abroad
as a ruse to misguide everyone. So much so, a Look Out Circular (LOC) has
been issued against him by another investigating agency.
53. This Court can only expect that petitioner participates in the ongoing
proceedings, with all due diligence.
54. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition stands dismissed.
55. Needless to emphasize, aforesaid observations shall not be taken as
final expressions over the merits of the case.

(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE

May 4, 2026/ dr/pb


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SONIA
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:04.05.2026
14:17:14
CRL.M.C. 682/2025 Page 17 of 17