Mahesh Chand Pandey vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.07.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1234/2026
MAHESH CHAND PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh Maini and
Tanya, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Sanjay Kumar.






CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
357/2025 of Police Station Crime Branch, South Delhi for offence under
Section 318(4)/319/336(2)/336(3)/61(2) of BNS.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The National
Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL),
in the ordinary course of its financial transactions invited bids on 24.10.2025
from Public Sector Banks for placement of its surplus funds in the form of
fixed deposits of Rs.103 crores. The successful bid came from Punjab &
Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar Branch. Thereafter, two representatives of Punjab
& Sind Bank contacted NHIDCL official over phone and took time for

BAIL APPLN.1234/2026 Page 1 of 5 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: 2026.07.22 19:13:26 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:26:51

submission of the documents related to fixed deposits. Subsequently, two
individuals, namely Jitender Yadav and Radhe Shyam Kashyap, claiming
themselves to be representatives of Punjab & Sind Bank visited NHIDCL
office and provided an account opening form to NHIDCL official.
Subsequently, NHIDCL official instructed their banker to transfer Rs.103
crores into the account details provided by those two persons. But
subsequently, before the public money could be squandered away, on
verification with the officials of Punjab & Sind Bank, it was revealed that no
such bid had been officially submitted by the bank with NHIDCL and it was
also revealed that an unauthorized bank account in the name of NHIDCL
had been opened in Yamuna Vihar Branch.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he was never
involved in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. It is also
informed that the entire amount of Rs.103 crores remains safe till date and
no loss has been suffered by the NHIDCL. It is contended that the
accused/applicant is being implicated solely on the basis of disclosure
statements of the co-accused persons.

4. Learned APP assisted by IO/SI Sanjay Kumar submits that on the
basis of investigation, the co-accused Murari Lal was arrested, who in his
confessional statement disclosed that it is the present accused/applicant
Mahesh Chand Pandey who accompanied him to coordinate with the
concerned department of NHIDCL. It is further submitted that Manager of

BAIL APPLN.1234/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.07.22 19:13:16 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:26:51

the Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi stated to the IO that he could
identify the person who had accompanied Murari Lal. No other evidence has
been collected till date by the investigating agency against the
accused/applicant.

5. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the
accused/applicant was repeatedly called to the police station and he joined
the investigation. This claim of learned counsel for accused/applicant is
refuted by the IO.

6. Of course, the offence is of wide magnitude. But at the same time,
despite the investigation having been started almost six months back, till
date there is no legally admissible evidence against the present
accused/applicant. There is also no clarity coming out of the investigation as
to what safeguards were adopted by the concerned officials of NHIDCL and
the Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. According to prosecution,
the co-accused Jitender and Radhe Shyam had delivered account opening
forms to the officials of NHIDCL; but it is not clear as to why NHIDCL
would transfer 103 crores to Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi
without ensuring to validly open the bank account first. At the same time, it
is also not clear as to why the Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar officials
would open the bank account of a PSU without physical verification.

7. In the status report, prosecution contended that on the basis of

BAIL APPLN.1234/2026 Page 3 of 5 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: 2026.07.22 19:13:07 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:26:51

technical analysis of the CCTV footage and the documentary records, they
can establish that co-accused Jitender and Radhe Shyam had visited
NHIDCL office for submission of bid documents and they had also visited
Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar for opening fake bank account in the
name of NHIDCL. On being arrested, those two persons disclosed
involvement of accused Rajesh Babu and Mohd. Chand; the accused Rajesh
Babu was arrested and he disclosed that accused Mohd. Chand had supplied
forged material like NHIDCL PAN Card, NHIDCL Identity Card and
Letterhead etc. which were used to open fake bank account.

8. On such sketchy investigation which spanned across six months, the
present accused/applicant is sought to be arrested solely on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused Murari Lal.

9. At this stage, in the course of dictation of this order, the IO submits
that the present accused/applicant never visited NHIDCL office or even
Punjab & Sind Bank, Yamuna Vihar. It is clarified by IO that the role
attributed to the present accused/applicant is that he met the bank manager,
Sumit Kumar outside the bank. But on this also, there is no CCTV footage
or any other material to show that the present accused/applicant had met the
bank manager.

10. The fact remains that the accused/applicant was not known by name
to the bank manager Sumit Kumar, who told the IO that Murari along with

BAIL APPLN.1234/2026 Page 4 of 5 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: 2026.07.22 19:12:57 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:26:51

another person ( purportedly the present accused/applicant ) had met him and
had collected his visiting card. In order to establish identity of the
accused/applicant through Test Identification Parade (TIP), withholding his
anticipatory bail at this stage after more than six months of initiation of
investigation would not be appropriate.

11. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reasonable
ground to deny liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, application is
allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant
shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing of a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the IO/SHO concerned.

12. It is directed that the accused/applicant shall join investigation as and
when in writing called by the IO.

13. It is also made clear that none of the observations made above shall be
read to the prejudice of either side at the final stage of the trial.


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: 2026.07.22 19:12:44 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA


GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
ry
JULY 22, 2026/

BAIL APPLN.1234/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:22.07.2026
19:26:51