Neeraj Singh @ Neeraj Kumar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 29 October,2026
# CNR No. DLHC010424782026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026, CRL.M.A. 27843/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL)
1718/2026
NEERAJ SINGH @ NEERAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Murari Kumar, Mr. Madhav,
Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Dhruv Tomar
and Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State.
SI Satish Singh, P.S. Ashok Nagar
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Mr. Vijender
and Mr. Jarnail Singh, Advocates for
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking regular bail in
th
FIR No. 577/2025 dated 11 December 2025 registered at P.S. New Ashok
Nagar, East District, for offences under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

nd
2. The applicant was arrested on 2 August 2026. He was initially
remanded to police custody for three (3) days and thereafter has remained in
judicial custody.
3. Earlier, the applicant’s first regular bail application under Section 480
th
BNSS was dismissed by the Magistrate on 6 August 2026. His subsequent
application under Section 483 BNSS was dismissed by the Sessions Court
th
on 25 August 2026.
4. As per the prosecution case, the applicant/accused Neeraj Singh @
Neeraj Kumar and co-accused Saurabh Srivastava had induced the
complainant to invest money in Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. on the
representation that the company had obtained a subcontract for work relating
to laying of cables under a BSNL/NOFN project. It was alleged that
pursuant to such representations, the complainant invested approximately
Rs.72.27 lakh in the said venture and was also induced to purchase a
tractor/trencher in connection with the project. The complainant's wife,
namely Archana Koushik, was appointed as a Director of Reno Infocom Pvt.
th nd
Ltd. and remained a Director from 24 September 2018 to 22 October
2022. The applicant and co-accused, Saurabh Srivastava, are stated to have
acted as authorised signatories and were involved in the affairs of the
company. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint and the allegations of
dishonest inducement and misappropriation of the amounts invested by the
complainant, the present FIR was registered.
th
5. Notice in the application was issued vide order dated 9 September
2026.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

6. Status report has been filed on behalf of the State. As per the status
report, Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with Naubahar Singh, being the authorised contractor
for execution of the work under the project. The applicant was actively
involved in the affairs of Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. and played a central role in
the transactions forming the subject matter of the present FIR. It is stated
that the applicant failed to join the investigation despite repeated notices
issued under Section 35(3) BNSS. Further, the custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required for tracing the flow of funds, verification of the
relevant bank accounts, ledgers and financial records, and for identifying the
ultimate beneficiaries of the alleged transactions.
7. Counsel for the applicant submits as follows:
7.1. The dispute arises out of a commercial transaction and the prosecution
has failed to demonstrate any fraudulent inducement on the part of the
applicant. There was no intention of the applicant to cheat the complainant
as the project could not be completed due to the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic.
7.2. The alleged transactions relate to 2018–2021 and the subject FIR
came to be registered after an inordinate delay of more than five (5) years.
7.3. The FIR has been registered without any jurisdiction as the entire set
of events relating to the FIR occurred in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, there is no cause of action, except the fact that the complainant
resides in Delhi.
7.4. The transactions relied upon by the prosecution are primarily
documentary in nature and the relevant bank records, MCA records, audit
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

documents, work orders and correspondence are already available to the
investigating agency. No specific recovery remains to be effected from the
applicant and continued custodial interrogation is therefore not warranted.
7.5. Co-accused, Saurabh Srivastava, has been granted interim protection
th
from arrest by this Court vide order dated 5 August 2026 in BAIL APPLN.
2697/2026. No concrete distinguishing feature between the roles of the
applicant and the co-accused has been identified. Therefore, the applicant
accordingly seeks parity with the co-accused.
7.6. The amount directly attributable to the applicant is approximately
Rs.7.39 lakh as against the total amount of approximately Rs.72.27 lakh
alleged to have been invested by the complainant. The same has been noted
by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the applicant's culpability, if any, cannot,
for the purposes of bail, be treated as co-extensive with the entire alleged
amount.
7.7. The money trail is through the company’s accounts rather than any
demonstrated direct receipt by the applicant. The applicant was merely an
authorised signatory of Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. and had no ownership or
beneficial interest in the company. The wife of the complainant was a
Director in Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd.
8. APP for the State opposes the present bail application and submits as
follows:
8.1 Even though the wife of the complainant was a Director in Reno
Infocom Pvt. Ltd., the financial affairs of the company were in the control of
the applicant and the co-accused.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

8.2 The inducement took place in Delhi, therefore, the territorial
jurisdiction to register the present FIR in Delhi cannot be disputed.
8.3 The Sessions Court, while dismissing the applicant's previous bail
application, had specifically observed that the investigation was at an early
stage and that the applicant’s role appeared to be central to the operational
and financial affairs of the company.
8.4 The applicant is not entitled to bail merely on the ground of parity
with the co-accused, whose role may be different.
9. Counsel appears on behalf of the complainant and vehemently
opposes the bail application. He submits that there are two (2) similar FIRs
registered against the applicant. In one of the FIRs registered at Moradabad,
the applicant has been declared as a proclaimed offender (hereinafter ‘P.O.)
and this fact has not been disclosed in the affidavit filed with the petition.
10. He submits that the entire control of Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. was with
the applicant and the co-accused. It is further highlighted that the MoU
between Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. and Naubahar Singh, on the basis of which
the complainant was induced into parting money, was an unsigned
document.
11. In rejoinder, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that in FIR
th
dated 11 April, 2015, registered as Case Crime No.89/2015, the applicant
has been granted interim protection by the Allahabad High Court vide order
th
dated 17 December, 2015. The applicant is not aware that he has been
declared a P.O. in the said FIR and accordingly, correct disclosure has been
made by the applicant in the affidavit filed along with the bail application.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

12. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
13. As per the status report, the monies were paid by the complainant to
the accused persons from the year 2018 till January 2021. The status report
also records that Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. received approximately
Rs.53,00,000/- from Naubahar Singh towards the project and work worth
Rs.32,69,892/- was completed by Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. The status report
also mentions that work was undertaken at the project site by Reno Infocom
Pvt. Ltd. however, the work could not be completed.
14. In these circumstances, at this prima facie stage, it cannot be
conclusively stated that the intention of the applicant was to cheat the
complainant. It is plausible that the work could not be completed on account
of other factors, including the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
culpability of the applicant can only be established in trial.
15. It is also to be borne in mind that the monies were paid by the
complainant to the accused person between 2018 and January 2021.
th
However, the present FIR was registered only on 11 December, 2025, after
a delay of almost 5 years.
16. The co-accused Saurabh Srivastava has already been granted
th
anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 5 August, 2026 and nothing
substantial has been shown to show that the role of the applicant in the
present case is substantially different from that of the co-accused.
17. Insofar as the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the
applicant has not disclosed the fact that he was declared P.O. in another FIR
relating to similar offence, the applicant has handed over a copy of the order
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

th
passed by the Allahabad High Court on 17 December, 2015, granting him
interim protection. On the face of it, it cannot be disputed that the applicant
was not aware if he was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender in the
said case. The affidavit duly discloses the two (2) other FIRs registered
against the applicant.
18. Investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has
been filed.
19. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as narrated above
and taking into account that the trial is likely to take some time, in my
opinion, further incarceration of the applicant is not necessary. Therefore,
this Court considers it fit to grant bail to the applicant.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is allowed and the
applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the following
conditions:
i. The applicant shall not leave the country without the prior permission
of the Court.
ii. The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when the
matter is taken up for hearing.
iii. The applicant shall join investigation as and when called by the
Investigating Officer (I.O.) concerned.
iv. The applicant shall provide his latest/fresh mobile number(s) to the
I.O. concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59

and shall not switch them off or change the mobile number(s) without
prior intimation to the I.O. concerned.
v. The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the Trial Court.
The applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to
the I.O. regarding any change in his residential address.
vi. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not
communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case.
21. Needless to state that any observations made herein are purely for the
purposes of deciding the question of grant of bail and shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case.
22. Pending applications stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3753/2026 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
17:45:59