Jaspreet Singh @ Jassi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Sho

$~69, 147, 148
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010496822026
BAIL APPLN. 4369/2026
+
(69) JASPREET SINGH @ JASSI .....Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO .....Respondent

# CNR No. DLHC010460912026
BAIL APPLN. 4066/2026
+
(147) PAWAN GUPTA @ALEX @ RAKESH .....Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

#
CNR No. DLHC010502822026
BAIL APPLN. 4443/2026
+
(148) SAYAM SAHNI .....Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through:
Presence
:
Mr. Nikhil Mehta, Mr. Prakrit Aneja, Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Yash Mehta,
Mr. Kushal Singh Thakur and Mr. Lavish, Advs. for petitioner in item
nos.69 and 147.
Mr. Romil Pathak, Mr. Aryan Pathak and Md. Bilal, Advs. for petitioner in
item no.69.
Mr. Mudit Jain, Ms. Mahima Malhotra, Mr. Vaibhav Bahl and Mr. Harjas,
Advs. for petitioner in item no.148.
Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.
Inspector Anand Kumar, IFSO, Special Cell.

Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
1. These three petitions arise from FIR No.153/2026, dated 17.06.2026,
registered at PS Special Cell, IFSO, New Delhi, under Sections 318(4)/319/
340/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNS ”)
read with Sections 66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Section 112 of the BNS has been invoked in the course of investigation.
Since all three petitions arise out of the same FIR and rest upon a common
factual matrix, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 16.06.2026, upon
receipt of secret information, a raid was conducted at premises bearing No.
M-16/17, New G-280, Back Side, L-Type, Rajapuri, behind Akash Hospital,
Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi, from where an illegal call centre is alleged to
have been operated. Fourteen persons were found seated in cubicles at
laptop workstations and were apprehended on the spot. It is alleged that they
were engaged in cheating citizens of the United States of America by
impersonating the technical support staff of Microsoft and inducing them to
part with money through gift cards, vouchers and cryptocurrency. Laptops,
mobile phones, a digital video recorder, call slips and scripts, a victim
database and voice recordings were seized.
3. It is noticed that the chargesheet, dated 06.08.2026, was filed on
08.08.2026. Charges are yet to be framed, and consequently, no witness has
been examined so far. The next date before the trial Court is 26.11.2026.
Further investigation is stated to be in progress.
4. It is pointed out that apart from these three applicants, all other co-
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

accused, who have been arrested, have been arrested are on bail.
5. It may be noticed at the outset that, although, vide orders dated
25.09.2026 (in Bail Appln. 4066/2026) and 15.10.2026 (in Bail Appln.
4443/2026), a status report was directed to be filed in each of these matters,
no status report has been filed before this Court. This Court has,
accordingly, proceeded upon the material placed on record by the
petitioners, which includes the charge-sheet and the replies/status reports
filed by the Investigating Officer before the Courts below.
BAIL APPLN. 4369/2026
6. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It transpires during the course of
hearing that the petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2026.
7. The application has, therefore, become infructuous. In regard to this, a

reference can be made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhanraj Aswani
v. Amar S. Mulchandani , (2024) 10 SCC 336 , wherein the Court noted:
“ 34. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565], this Court emphasised that the
applicant must have a tangible reason to believe. Vague
apprehension will not do. Secondly, it held that the High Court or
the Court of Session should not ask an applicant to go before the
Magistrate to try his luck under Section 437CrPC. It was also
observed that once the accused is arrested, Section 438CrPC
ceases to play any role with reference to the offence or offences
for which he is arrested.
This Court also cautioned against passing
a blanket order for anticipatory bail.
*
65.1. An accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail in connection
with an offence so long as he is not arrested in relation to that
offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available to him is to
apply for regular bail either under Section 437 or Section
439CrPC, as the case may be . This is evident from para 39 of
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia. ”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

(emphasis supplied)
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court
has expressed no opinion on the merits of this application, as the application
cannot, in law, be considered at this stage.
9. However, the applicant is at liberty to seek regular bail before the
appropriate Court in accordance with law. The same, if filed, shall be
decided on its own merits.
BAIL APPLN. 4066/2026
BAIL APPLN. 4443/2026

10. The applicant/petitioner Pawan Gupta @ Alex @ Rakesh (in Bail
Appln. 4066/2026) was apprehended at the spot and has been in custody
since 17.06.2026, i.e. , for almost four and a half (4 ½) months. He was
allegedly the Manager/IT Head of the technical and management team and is
alleged to have trained the callers and diallers.
11. The applicant/petitioner Shyam Sahni (in Bail Appln. 4443/2026) was
not present at the premises and is not named in the FIR. He was allegedly
the Technical Infrastructure Provider, the allegation being that he supplied
and renewed subscriptions to VoIP and toll-free number services and was
paid in cryptocurrency. He was arrested on 01.07.2026. As such, he has been
in custody for almost four (4) months.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the chargesheet has

been filed and that the relevant electronic evidence has been seized and is in
the custody of the investigating agency. It is also submitted that no victim
has come forward and no statement of any person affected is on record, and
that there is no complainant and no quantification of any loss. It is further
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

contended that the arrest of the petitioners did not conform to Section 35 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “ BNSS ”). In the
case of Sayam Sahni (Bail Appln. 4443/2026), it is submitted that the notice
under Section 35(3) was handed over to his father and was never served
upon him personally. It is also pointed out that none of the offences invoked
is punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven (7) years.
13. Learned APP for the State opposes these applications. He submits that
the petitioners have a crucial role in the cross-border fraud and that
investigation is still continuing and that the statements of the victims, who
are citizens of the United States, are awaited through the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The contention that there has been non-compliance with
Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 is also refuted.
14. It is noticed that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to

seven years, Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS permits arrest without warrant
only where a police officer has reason to believe that the person concerned
has committed the offence and is satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing,
that arrest is necessary for a purpose specified therein. Otherwise, Section
35(3) of the BNSS mandates a notice of appearance. Where such a notice
has been issued and has not been complied with, the power of arrest arises
under Section 35(6) of the BNSS. Investigating agencies are duty-bound to
comply with this mandate.
15. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2026
INSC 115 , wherein, while interpreting Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, it has
been observed as follows:
“ 21. After being satisfied that there is a necessity of arrest, a police
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

officer is bound to record his reasons either for arrest, as
provided for under Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023
, or for
merely issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023.
Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, thus, carves out an exception,
with its inbuilt safeguards.
*
30. While making an arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023,
after the stage of issuing a notice seeking presence under Section
35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the circumstances and factors that were in
existence at the time of issuing the said notice shall not be taken
into consideration by a police officer while making an arrest
subsequently. In other words, for effecting an arrest under Section
35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, it must be based upon materials and
factors which were not available with the police officer at the time
of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 .
Therefore, the power of arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS,
2023 is to be exercised rather sparingly
, only under circumstances
as aforementioned.
a notice under
Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any individual
concerned, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7
years, is the rule, while an arrest under Section 35(6) read with
Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, is a clear exception
31. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that
.
*
32. The power of arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 must be interpreted as a strict
objective necessity, and not a subjective convenience for the
police officer
. It does not mean the police officer can arrest to
simply ask questions. However, it means that the police officer must
satisfy himself that the investigation, qua an offence punishable
with imprisonment up to 7 years, cannot proceed effectively without
taking the concerned individual into custody. Any interpretation to
the contrary would clearly frustrate the purpose and legislative
intent of Sections 35(1)(b) and Sections 35(3) to 35(6) of the BNSS,
2023.
33. On the basis of the interpretation given by us, we conclude as
follows:
*
c. For effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of
the BNSS, 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, 2023 must be in existence
.
*
e. Even if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are
available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section
35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken,
unless it absolutely warranted.
”
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the present applications, the status reports filed before the lower
Court do not disclose the reasons for arrest of either of the petitioners, as is
required by Section 35 of the BNSS. In Bail Appln. 443/2026, neither notice
nor proof of its service on the applicant is placed on record. As regards the
service of the notice upon the applicant’s father, the following direction of
the Division Bench of this Court in Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT
of Delhi) , 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13448 , is noted:
“ 16. We have heard Mr Sanjay Jain, learned ASG and Mr
Satyakam, ASC, GNCTD on the aforesaid issues and the reports.
Upon consideration of the report and the suggestions made by the
parties under the leadership of the Worthy Registrar General and
with their consent, it is directed that so far as working of Section
41 A, the following procedure shall be strictly followed by the
police in Delhi:

*
(viii) The investigating officer shall follow the following
procedure:—
a The original is served on the Accused/Suspect
b A carbon copy (on white paper) is retained by the IO in his/her
case diary, which can be shown to the concerned Magistrate as and
when required;
;
c Used booklets are to be deposited by the IO with the SHO of the
Police Station who shall retain the same till the completion of the
investigation and submission of the final report under Section 173
(2) of the CrPC
d The Police department shall frame appropriate rules for the
preservation and destruction of such booklets. … ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

17. It is not necessary to finally decide the question of compliance with
Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, and nothing stated herein shall be construed
as a finding on that question. Suffice it to note that compliance has not been
shown in these proceedings, and that this is a circumstance which this Court
is entitled to take into account while considering the petitioners’ prayer for
bail.
18. Apart from the aforesaid, the following facts and circumstances also
weigh with this Court:
a. The charge-sheet has been filed, and the electronic evidence
stands seized and is in the custody of the investigating agency;
b. No statement of any victim is on record, and there is no
complainant;
c. The offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven

years and are triable by a Magistrate;
d. All the co-accused who have been arrested, other than the
petitioners, are already on bail;
e. The alleged owner is now in custody, and the apprehension of
the petitioners coordinating with him no longer obtains with the
same force;
f. Neither petitioner has any previous conviction; and
g. Charges are yet to be framed, the statements of the victims are
awaited from a foreign agency, and the trial is unlikely to
conclude in the near future.
19. It is relevant to take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 INSC 595 , wherein it
was observed as follows:
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

“ 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time,
the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very
well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment . From our experience, we can say that it
appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to
play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a
rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight
forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency.
It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts
should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is
exception”
54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI
matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves
thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of
digitized documents.
.
It is thus clear that there is not even the
remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near
future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for
an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion
of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
As observed time and again,
the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of
an offence should not be permitted to become punishment
without trial. ”
(emphasis supplied)
20. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.02.2025, in
Rudra Kumar Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi , Bail Appln. 4375/2024 ,
observed as under:
“ 32. In light of the aforementioned judicial precedents and
considering that the investigation in this case has been
completed, the charge-sheet has been filed, keeping the
applicant in custody for almost six (6) months and his
further incarciration as an under trial serves no further
purpose. Since all the evidence is electronic and document-
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

based and is already in the possession of the investigating
agency, the likelihood of the applicant tampering with the
evidence if released on bail is remote and bleak . Regarding
the respondent’s apprehension that the applicant may be a
flight risk, this concern can be adequately addressed by
imposing stringent conditions and, therefore, could not be
the sole ground for denying bail
. … ”
(emphasis supplied)
21. This Court is cognizant of the fact that allegations in the present case
are grave in nature; however, the Court also cannot lose sight of the dicta in
Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. , (2020) 11 SCC 648 , wherein the
Supreme Court observed:
“ 7. … The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and
there are several criminal cases pending against the accused.
These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of
prayer for bail.
The High Court has exercised its discretion in
granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering
relevant materials. No ex facie error in the order has been
shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such
discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of
the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed. ”
(emphasis supplied)
22. In the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners are
entitled to bail.
23. Accordingly, Bail Appln. Nos. 4066/2026 and 4443/2026 are allowed.
24. The petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The same shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. The applicants shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

permission of the trial Court;
b. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the
trial Court and shall surrender their passports before the Trial
Court;
c. The applicants shall provide his permanent address to the trial
Court, and also the address where he will be residing during the
pendency of the case;
d. The applicants shall intimate the Investigating Officer (IO) and
file an affidavit before the trial Court regarding any change in
his residential address;
e. The applicant/petitioner shall furnish his mobile number to the
Investigating Officer (IO)/Station House Officer (SHO)
concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all
times. The mobile number shall be kept switched on, with
location services enabled at all times, and the same shall be
shared with the IO. The mobile number shall not be changed
without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the
trial;
f. The applicant/petitioner shall report to the IO as and when
called upon to do so;
g. The applicant/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;
h. The applicant/petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on
each and every date of hearing; and
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43

i. The applicant/petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal
activity during the period of bail.
25. In the case of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be
entitled to seek cancellation of bail.
26. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ cl/vk
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN.4369/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 12

Digitally Signed
By:ABHISHEK THAKUR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
19:24:43