Sudheer vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07.07.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025
SUDHEER .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tom Joseph, Mr. Nishe Rajen
Shonker, and Ms. Anugrah Sabu,
Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP,
Mr. Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Harshita
Sukhija, Ms. Rishika Agarwal, Mr.
Shreyan Srivastav, Ms. Samridhi
Dobhal, Ms. Krishna Mohan
Chandel, Mr. Hritwik Maurya, Ms.
Lisa Pagwal, Ms. Apoorv Paliya,
Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates for
State with ACP Virender Kadyan,
Insp. Pradeep Rai.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
J U D G M E N T
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“CrPC”]), the
petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021, dated
07.08.2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, under
Sections 170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 1 of 18

1860 [“IPC”], and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000
[“IT Act”]. At the time of filing of the chargesheet, Sections 3 and 4 of
the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [“MCOCA”],
were also invoked.
2. This is the first bail application filed by the petitioner before this
Court. He had earlier filed a bail application before the Special Court,
which was dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2025.
3. I have heard Mr. Tom Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the State. The State has
also filed a status report, which is on record.
4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that I have recently decided
three bail applications arising out of the same proceedings, filed by co-
accused Leena Paulose [hereinafter, “Leena”], Deepak Ramnani
[hereinafter, “Deepak”], and Pradeep Ramdanee [hereinafter, “Pradeep”].
1
The application filed by Leena was dismissed, whereas the applications
2 3
filed by Deepak and Pradeep were allowed.
I. P ROSECUTION C ASE :
5. The prosecution case, as it appears from the material on record, is
as follows:
a. FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021, lodged at Police Station
Special Cell, Delhi, under Sections
170/384/385/388/419/420/506/120B of the IPC and Section 66D of
the IT Act, was registered at the instance of one Ms. Aditi Singh.
1
BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024, decided on 05.05.2026, [hereinafter, “ Leena Paulose ”]. An earlier
application for bail filed by Leena in the State proceedings [BAIL APPLN. 3706/2022] was also
rejected by judgment dated 11.07.2023.
2
BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024, decided on 05.06.2026 [hereinafter, “ Deepak Ramnani ”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 2 of 18

b. According to the complaint, on 15.06.2020, the complainant
received a call on her mobile phone from a landline number. The
caller introduced himself as a senior officer in the Ministry of Law
and offered assistance in securing bail for her husband, who was in
judicial custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises
Limited.
c. It is alleged that the caller demanded Rs. 50 crores in exchange for
facilitating the bail and explained the method of delivering the
money.
d. Subsequently, through his associates, the caller allegedly extorted
money from the complainant on multiple occasions between June
2020 and August 2021, amounting to a total of Rs. 217 crores.
There are further allegations with regard to impersonation of senior
officials, including the Home Secretary, Government of India, and
misrepresenting the involvement of other government
functionaries, including the Home Minister.
e. Acting on the said information, on 07.08.2021, the police laid a
trap and apprehended Pradeep, while he was receiving the extorted
amount. He was arrested on the same day. During interrogation, he
disclosed that he was acting on the instructions of his brother,
Deepak, who was subsequently arrested on 08.08.2021.
f. Using technical surveillance of the mobile phone used for making
the calls, and the statements of co-accused, the caller was identified
as one Sukesh Chandra Shekhar @ Sukash Chandra Shekhar
[hereinafter, “Sukesh”].
3
BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, decided on 05.06.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 3 of 18

g. At this time, Sukesh was already lodged in Tihar Jail as an
undertrial prisoner in a separate case, involving allegations of
collecting money from a political leader on the pretext of helping
him retain a particular election symbol. He was later shifted to
Rohini Jail.
h. A raid was conducted on the intervening night of 07/08.08.2021 by
the Special Cell, during which two mobile phones were recovered
from Sukesh, while he was in custody, and he was formally
arrested in connection with the present FIR. His interrogation led to
the identification and arrest of other associates and co-conspirators.
The petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2024.
i. During investigation, it was found that Sukesh was involved in
multiple cases, including attempt to murder, criminal intimidation,
cheating, and extortion, often by impersonating high-ranking
officials.
j. Part of the extorted amount was allegedly transmitted by Sukesh,
through hawala channels, to his wife, Leena, in Chennai.
k. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, his role in the
4
aforesaid offences is summarised in the chargesheet as follows:
“ Role of accused Sudheer
During investigation, it has emerged that accused Sudheer was an
important part of crime syndicate run by accused Sukash Chandra
Sekhar. He was helping mastermind of the crime syndicate, accused
Sukash Chandra Sekhar and his wife/co-accused Leena Paulose in
parking of crime proceeds. He is an old trusted associate of accused
Sukash Chandra Shekhar and Leena Paulose and was well aware
about the activities of the crime syndicate.
4 th
5 Supplementary chargesheet dated 04.10.2024.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 4 of 18

During investigation at that time, it was found that accused Sudheer
remained involved in unlawful activities of crime syndicate and efforts
were made to examine him, but he deliberately avoided his joining
investigation and kept on absconding continuously. Since, sufficient
evidence against accused Sudheer have came on record, hence,
Notices u/s 41A Cr.P.C. were issued to him for joining the
investigation at that time. However, despite repeated efforts, he never
joined the investigation. Accordingly, his NBW was got obtained from
the Hon'ble Court and proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. were also initiated.
Finally, on 10-04-2024, the Hon'ble Trial Court declared him a
proclaimed person.
During investigation, accused Leena Paulose in her disclosure
statement stated that B. Mohan Raj and Sudheer were very close to
Sukash Chandra Shekhar. Sudheer and accused Joel Daniel used to
stay with her in August-2020 at her ECR House Chennai. Sudheer and
Joel used to collect cash from Hawala operators on the instructions of
Sukash Chandra Shekhar and further delivered it to different persons
including B. Mohan Raj as per the directions of Sukash Chandra
Shekhar and Leena Paulose.
Further, another accused Arun Muthu also disclosed that Leena
Paulose with the help of B. Mohanraj, Sudheer and Joel Daniel used
to convert cash into bank entries through card swapping etc. Accused
Sukash Chandra Shekhar in his confessional statement U/s 18 MCOC
Act also disclosed that cash was received from a sow carpet firms,
Chennai and same was collected by Sudheer and Joel Daniel. This
cash was delivered to B. Mohanraj. Accused B. Mohanraj in his
confessional statement U/s 18 MCOC Act disclosed that the cash was
handed over by Sudheer to Kamlesh Kothari at Kamlesh Kothari's
office for buying high end cars.
”
TATEMENTS UNDER ECTION OF
II. S S 18 MCOCA:
6. In support of the above allegations, the State relied upon
confessional statements under Section 18 of MCOCA made by co-
accused Sukesh, B. Mohanraj [hereinafter, “Mohanraj”], and the
petitioner himself.
7. The statements of Sukesh, Mohanraj and the petitioner, insofar as
they are relevant, are summarised as follows:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 5 of 18

A. Confessional statement under Section 18 MCOCA of Sukesh:
Sukesh stated that he had informed Leena about the whole plan and
told her to take precautions to avoid trouble with the agencies. He
told her that the cash will reach her through hawala , and Deepak
will be helping them. He further told her that the cash will be
delivered to pre-decided locations, and can be used to purchase
luxury cars and valuable articles. He also told her to brief each of
their aides. The said cash was received at Sow carpet, Chennai and
collected by the petitioner and Joel Daniel [hereinafter, “Joel”].
Cash was delivered to Mohanraj and he further delivered it to
Kamlesh Kothari [hereinafter, “Kamlesh”] and Arun Muthu
[hereinafter, “Arun”]. Arun deals in providing bank entries and
Kamlesh deals in purchasing high ends cars and house.
B. Confessional statement under Section 18 MCOCA of Mohanraj:
Mohanraj stated that Sukesh wanted to purchase two cars for his
wife, and informed him about sellers of the cars, and that he
wanted the cars to be bought under some other name. Kamlesh
arranged two buyers for the same. Sukesh sent cash through the
petitioner, who handed it over to Kamlesh at Kamlesh’s office.
C. Confessional statement under Section 18 MCOCA of petitioner:
The petitioner stated that he was working in Dubai from 1999 to
2016. After returning from Dubai in 2016, he had no work. He
thereafter met Leena, who employed him as a driver in Thrissur for
a renumeration of Rs. 25,000/-. In August-September 2017, Leena
shifted him to work at her ECR Road house in Chennai as a driver,
where he was helping with other household tasks as well. His
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 6 of 18

renumeration had also increased to Rs. 35,000/-. Over the course of
his employment, he became a trusted associate of Leena, who then
informed him about Sukesh. Leena also told him about a pending
case against her and Sukesh, and that Sukesh was in jail. Leena
used to buy him expensive clothes and phones. Leena informed
him that she was looking for a trusted associate, who would help
her and Sukesh in hiding the money made through crime, for which
they would pay handsomely in return. At first, he refused, but upon
assurances from Leena that he would not face any problems, and
would also get a higher pay, he accepted her offer to join their
group. Leena and Sukesh used to speak to him through WhatsApp,
and would never take normal calls from him. Between 2018-2020,
he visited Delhi multiple times on the instructions of Leena, and
stayed at hotels near Delhi Airport or Tihar Jail. He visited Tihar
Jail officially to meet Sukesh on multiple occasions and passed on
Leena’s messages to him. His work in Delhi involved providing
clothes and food to Sukesh in jail. He used to wait outside, from
where jail officials used to take the clothes and food from him.
Sukesh had all the facilities in jail, including a room to himself, as
well as a phone and laptop. Whenever the petitioner was in need of
money, he was provided with a token number and a phone number
from Leena or Sukesh, and upon calling that phone number and
providing the token number, he used to receive the money. Sukesh
and Leena sent a lot of money to him, which he used to deliver to
Mohanraj and Arun on their instructions, who used to adjust the
proceeds of crime in Salon Nail Artistry and Super Car company.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 7 of 18

The petitioner and Joel were tasked with getting cash and
delivering it to Mohanraj, Arun, and sometimes Leena. The
petitioner used to collect the hawala cash from Sow Carpet,
Chennai, as well as other places. Pursuant to a raid in Sukesh’s jail
cell, Leena instructed the petitioner to go underground for 2-3
months. He thereafter stayed underground in Ajmer Sharif and
Jaipur. Later, Leena called him back to Chennai. Leena purchased a
new house in ECR Road in Chennai with the help of Mohanraj,
Kamlesh and Arun. During the time of purchase, the petitioner had
made a delivery through the token system of more than Rs. 7
Crores in cash to Kamlesh at his office. During July-August 2020,
Sukesh and Leena were moving money worth crores, and the
petitioner told Leena about the risk of collecting such high volume
of money, but he was told that Sukesh was cheating a big person
and that he would also get a good amount of money. Out of this
money, a large portion was used to make the new house beautiful
and purchase of cars. Whenever Sukesh used to be in Chennai on
interim bail, Arun, Mohanraj, Kamlesh and Joel used to visit him,
and discuss about plans to handle the money received through
hawala . The petitioner used to receive money either in cash or in
his wife’s account. Upon Sukesh’s arrest, the petitioner was on the
run for three years. He wanted to go to Saudi Arabia for work, but
was caught.
UBMISSIONS OF EARNED OUNSEL FOR THE ARTIES
III. S L C P :
8. Mr. Joseph's principal submission is that the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of parity with co-accused Joel, who was granted bail by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 8 of 18

Special Court vide order dated 21.11.2022. He submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are substantially similar to those levelled
against Joel, inasmuch as both were merely salaried employees of Leena,
who were entrusted with the task of collecting cash and delivering it to
other individuals, as instructed, or other menial tasks.
9. Mr. Joseph further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on
20.07.2024, and has thus been in custody for a period of nearly two years.
Charges have recently been framed, by an order of the Special Court
dated 03.06.2026. However, the State has cited 403 witnesses, and the
chargesheets collectively exceed 10,000 pages. Further, one of the co-
accused, Navas KI, has been arrested recently, and it is likely that a
supplementary chargesheet will have to be filed in relation to his case.
Considering the aforesaid factors, Mr. Joseph submitted that the
petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution, has been defeated, and his continued custody pending trial
is constitutionally unjustifiable.
10. Mr. Joseph further submitted that the legal position with regard to
prolonged incarceration, vis-à-vis the restrictions on grant of bail under
Section 21(4) of MCOCA, has been considered at length in the judgments
in Leena Paulose and Deepak Ramnani . Applying the same yardstick to
the present case, he submitted that the Court is required to examine the
role attributed to the petitioner and the prima facie material supporting
the allegations against him, to adjudicate whether his further custody is
warranted. In this context, Mr. Joseph argued that, even according to the
prosecution, the petitioner’s role was limited to handling the allegedly
extorted funds. He played no role in the planning or execution of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 9 of 18

foundational offence of extortion, but only in delivery of the funds sent
by Sukesh to Leena in Chennai.
11. Mr. Jain, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has
remained in custody for less than two years in connection with offences
punishable with imprisonment for life. He therefore contended that the
petitioner cannot claim the benefit of prolonged incarceration.
12. Mr. Jain submitted that the petitioner had a direct role in handling
of the extorted funds in Chennai, with full knowledge of the illegal
activities of the Organised Crime Syndicate [hereinafter, “OCS”]. He was
thus not only involved in abetment of the activities of the OCS, but was
also directly involved in the “ continuing unlawful activities ”, within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA, which clearly demonstrates
“ membership ” of the OCS under Section 3(4) of MCOCA. He submitted
that the petitioner participated in disposal of the proceeds of crime, and
also collection of money from hawala channels, and delivery to pre-
determined associates on the instructions of Leena and Sukesh. In further
support of this contention, he pointed out that the petitioner had visited
Sukesh in Tihar Jail on five occasions, and had travelled with him on
fourteen chartered flights. He also referred to the scrutiny of the bank
account of the petitioner's wife, which revealed the receipt of Rs. 9 lakhs
from M/s Stash Wear Pvt. Ltd., a company allegedly belonging to Arun.
13. Mr. Jain submitted that, at the stage of consideration of bail,
statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA cannot be discarded
merely because they have subsequently been retracted, the effect of such
retraction being a matter for trial. In support, he relied upon the
judgments of this Court rejecting the bail applications of co-accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 10 of 18

5
Leena . He emphasised that, according to the statements of Sukesh and
the petitioner himself, the petitioner was a key participant in facilitating
the disposal of proceeds of crime and in providing Sukesh with clothes
and food while he was lodged in jail. He further referred to Mohanraj's
statement, to contend that the petitioner had acted as a conduit for
transferring funds utilised for the purchase of luxury cars for Leena.
14. Lastly, Mr. Jain submitted that the petitioner had absconded for
nearly three years and was eventually declared a proclaimed offender by
the Special Court, vide order dated 10.04.2023. He also submitted that the
petitioner was apprehended near the Indo-Nepal border pursuant to a
Look Out Circular issued against him. According to him, these
circumstances militate against the grant of bail to the petitioner.
15. In rejoinder, Mr. Joseph disputed the allegation that the petitioner
had absconded for three years. He submitted that the petitioner was first
named as a suspect, only in the fourth supplementary chargesheet dated
21.08.2023 and was subsequently arraigned as an accused in the fifth
supplementary chargesheet dated 04.10.2024, although he had already
been arrested on 20.07.2024. He further contended that the fact that the
petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender does not, by itself,
disentitle him from being considered for regular bail. He also submitted
that the petitioner's wife and children are permanently settled in Kerala,
demonstrating that he has deep roots in society.
16. Mr. Joseph further submitted that, while granting bail to Joel, the
Special Court had specifically considered the evidentiary value of the
5
BAIL APPLN. 3706/2022, decided on 11.07.2023 and BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024, decided on
05.05.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 11 of 18

statements recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA and their subsequent
retraction. He pointed out that the said order has not been challenged by
the prosecution and has thus attained finality. On that basis, he reiterated
the petitioner's claim for parity.
17. In response to the allegation regarding his meetings with Sukesh in
jail, Mr. Joseph submitted that such " associative proximity " was also
considered by this Court in Deepak Ramnani . He further pointed out that
the alleged acts of extortion were committed in Rohini Jail, whereas his
visits were to Sukesh in Tihar Jail, which further dilutes the significance
of those meetings.
NALYSIS
IV. A
18. The principal questions raised by Mr. Joseph, in support of the
present application, are based on the grounds of prolonged incarceration
and parity with co-accused Joel. In order to adjudicate these questions, it
is appropriate to analyse the prosecution allegations against the petitioner.
19. At the outset, it is clear that the prosecution does not attribute any
role in the planning or execution of the foundational offence of extortion
to the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was a
salaried employee of Leena, primarily working as her driver. It is alleged
that he facilitated the disposal of the proceeds of crime by collecting
money received through hawala channels, and delivering it to persons
designated by Leena and Sukesh. More specifically, the petitioner is
alleged to have, alongwith Joel, collected cash from Sow Carpet,
Chennai, and delivered it to Mohanraj. It is further alleged that, acting on
Sukesh's instructions, he delivered a substantial amount of cash to
Kamlesh at his office for the purchase of luxury cars. The prosecution
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 12 of 18

also relies upon the transfer of Rs. 9 lakhs by M/s Stash Wear Pvt. Ltd.,
allegedly owned by Arun, into the bank account of the petitioner's wife.
In addition, it is alleged that the petitioner visited Sukesh in Tihar Jail on
five occasions, regularly supplied him with clothes and food through jail
officials, and travelled with him on 14 chartered flights.
20. While granting bail to Joel, the Special Court noticed that he was
also a salaried employee of Leena, who facilitated the collection and
distribution of the alleged proceeds of crime received from Sukesh. It was
alleged that he collected money through hawala channels on the
instructions of Leena and Mohanraj and delivered the same to designated
persons. Having considered the material in the context of the twin
conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA, the Special Court ultimately
concluded that Joel was entitled to bail. I am informed that the said order
has not been challenged and has, therefore, attained finality.
21. Viewed holistically, the role attributed to the petitioner is, prima
facie , substantially similar to that attributed to Joel. In both cases, the
allegation is that they were salaried employees of Leena who acted under
the instructions of Leena and Sukesh, and facilitated the movement and
delivery of the alleged proceeds of crime through hawala channels. There
is no suggestion that the petitioner had any decision-making
responsibility, as far as collection of the amounts or their distribution is
concerned. He, like Joel, was acting upon the instructions of Sukesh and
Leena. To the extent that the petitioner was also allegedly travelling with
Sukesh or providing him with clothes and food while he was in jail, I do
not consider these factors to make a determinative difference to the case.
They underscore his role as a salaried employee, responsible for fulfilling
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 13 of 18

the demands of his employers. The fact that he was trusted by the
employers, and frequently travelled with Sukesh, do not detract from this
overall analysis, and are really facets of “ associative proximity ”, which
has also been considered in Deepak Ramnani , while granting bail to the
accused therein.
22. Turning next to the ground of prolonged incarceration, I am unable
to accept the submission of Mr. Jain that the petitioner is disentitled to
invoke Article 21 of the Constitution, merely because he has undergone
custody for a period of less than two years, in respect of offences
punishable with imprisonment for life. Although the period of
incarceration undergone in the cases of co-accused Deepak and Pradeep,
6
who have been granted bail by this Court , was substantially higher, the
question of prolonged incarceration cannot be determined by a rigid
formula. Whether continued incarceration has become excessive, must
necessarily be assessed on the facts of each case.
23. In Leena Paulose, and subsequently in Deepak Ramnani , this Court
had occasion to consider the interplay between the constitutional
guarantee under Article 21 and the statutory restrictions on the grant of
bail under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The position that emerges from
those decisions is that the statutory embargo cannot eclipse a
constitutionally protected claim founded upon prolonged pre-trial
incarceration. At the same time, prolonged incarceration is not a
standalone consideration. The Court is required to examine the period of
custody in conjunction with the nature of the offence, the role attributed
6
BAIL APPLN. 4286/2024 and BAIL APPLN. 4441/2024, decided vide a common judgment dated
05.06.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 14 of 18

to the accused, the strength of the prima facie case, and the realistic
possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.
24. As noted above, the main allegation against the petitioner is that,
being a salaried employee of Leena, he acted as a conduit in handling and
delivering the alleged proceeds of crime pursuant to the instructions of
Leena and Sukesh. The statements of other co-accused, and of witnesses
relied upon by the prosecution, do not prima facie accord any higher role
to the petitioner than this. As against this, the petitioner has undergone
incarceration as an undertail of almost two years. This period is
substantially higher than the period undergone by Joel when he was
released on bail, which was approximately 14 months. The offence under
Section 3(4) of MCOCA carries a sentence which may extend to
imprisonment of five years to life imprisonment. However, the
proceedings have only recently reached the stage of framing of charges.
The prosecution proposes to examine as many as 403 witnesses, and the
chargesheets collectively exceed 10,000 pages. In addition, one of the co-
accused, Navas KI, has only recently been arrested, making the filing of a
further supplementary chargesheet a distinct possibility. Thus, an
expeditious conclusion of the trial is unlikely. Although I have held, in
7
Leena Paulose , that the delay in the present case cannot be attributed to
prosecutorial delays or court inaction alone, I am of the view that the role
ascribed to the petitioner by the prosecution does not justify his further
incarceration as an undertrial.
25. Lastly, the petitioner's conduct in absconding and his subsequent
declaration as a proclaimed offender does not persuade me to a contrary
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 15 of 18

conclusion. While such conduct is definitely to be deprecated, it cannot,
by itself, justify his continued incarceration for an indefinite period. As
noticed above, the petitioner has remained in custody for nearly two
years, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.
Further, the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the
petitioner must be viewed holistically while considering the question of
bail. The petitioner's past conduct is, therefore, one of the factors to be
weighed in the overall balancing exercise under Article 21, but it cannot,
in the facts of the present case, be treated as conclusive, so as to ignore all
other relevant considerations. Instead of subjecting the petitioner to
further pre-trial custody, I am of the view that the apprehension that the
petitioner may evade the process of law, can be addressed by imposing
stringent conditions to secure his presence during trial, including periodic
requirement of reporting to the police authorities.
26. Having regard to the aforesaid considerations, including parity
between the role attributed to the petitioner and that of Joel, the period of
incarceration already undergone, the unlikely prospect of an early
conclusion of the trial, and the nature of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner, I am of the view that this is a fit case for the grant of bail.
V. C ONCLUSION
27. The application is allowed, and it is directed that the petitioner be
released on bail in connection with FIR No. 208/2021, dated 07.08.2021,
registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, subject to furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-, alongwith two sureties in the like
7
Paragraph 37.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 16 of 18

amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Special Court/Duty
Magistrate, and subject to the following further conditions:
a. The petitioner shall appear before the Special Court on each and
every date of hearing;
b. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Special Court,
and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the
concerned Court;
c. The petitioner shall provide his permanent address to the concerned
Court, as also the address where he is residing during the pendency
of the case. The petitioner shall intimate the Investigating Officer
[“IO”], and file an affidavit before the Special Court, regarding any
change in residential address;
d. The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the concerned
IO/Station House Officer, which shall be kept in working condition
at all times. The mobile number shall not be switched off or
changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of
the trial;
e. The petitioner shall report to the jurisdictional Police Station near
his place of residence every Monday and Thursday at 04:00 PM,
and will be released within two hours, after completion of
formalities.
f. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any
manner whatsoever;
g. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 17 of 18

his release.
28. It is made clear that any violation of the aforesaid conditions may
result in cancellation of bail granted to the petition.
29. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.
30. It is clarified that any observations made in the present judgment
are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and
shall neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
31. Copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JULY 7, 2026
SS/AD/KA/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL
VASHIST
Signing Date:07.07.2026
21:00:12
BAIL APPLN. 3916/2025 Page 18 of 18