Vinay Negi vs State Nct Of Delhi

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 27 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010239092026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2032/2026
VINAY NEGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virender Verma, Adv. (Through
VC)

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State
Ms. Rachna Maheshwari, Ms. Mannu
Bansal and Ms. Raina Jha, Advs. for
complainant
Insp. Jasveer Singh, PS EOW

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking grant of regular
bail to the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Vinay Negi, S/o Late Sh. Hukam Singh, in
connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”), being FIR No.
st
129/2024, dated 01 November, 2024, registered at Police Station (“PS”)
Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), South, Delhi, under Sections
316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 1 of 11

(“BNS”) and Sections 65/66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT
Act”).
2. The relevant facts pertinent for the adjudication of the present
application, culled out from the documents on record, are as follows:
st
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered on 01 November, 2024, at PS
st
EOW, South, Delhi, pursuant to a written complaint dated 01 October, 2024,
filed by Sh. Jackie Verma, the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) and
Authorized Representative (“AR”) of M/s KNAB Finance Advisors Pvt. Ltd,
a licensed Non-Banking Financial Company (“NBFC”) engaged in digital
lending primarily offering Loan Against Securities (“LAS”) such as shares,
bonds and mutual funds.
2.2. The complainant company alleges fraud, cheating, misappropriation of
funds, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, causing wrongful loss of around Rs.
5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Only) to the complainant company, by the
accused persons, including the petitioner herein.
2.3. It has further been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner joined the
complainant company in August, 2023, as Assistant Manager (Operations),
and he was responsible for approving disbursements to customers, marking
repayments and approving further tranche requests, and had authorized access
to the company’s Loan Management System (“LMS”). He was thereby
entrusted with the company’s funds in his official capacity.
2.4. As per the complainant company, its Finance Department noticed
irregularities in repeated tranche requests and payments. Subsequently, it was
discovered that although the loan accounts showed that funds had been
disbursed, but none of the original borrowers received the money, and the
tranche payments had also not been entered into the LMS.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 2 of 11

2.5. It is alleged that since March, 2024, the petitioner, in complicity with
unknown accomplices, had siphoned off the company’s funds. When
clarification was sought from him, he allegedly stopped attending office and
absconded.
2.6. The complainant alleges that at least 69 fraudulent transactions,
amounting to Rs. 3,23,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore and Twenty-Three Lacs
Only), were routed into three bank accounts, two in the name of the petitioner
and one in the name of the co-accused, i.e., Sh. Amit Bhandari, whose identity
is stated to be unknown. The complainant suggests that the co-accused may
either be a fictitious person created by the petitioner or a co-conspirator.
2.7. During the course of investigation, the modus operandi of the petitioner
was unearthed as follows; (i) forging tranche disbursement related emails by
impersonating customers/support desk officials; (ii) manipulating beneficiary
account details in tranche processing requests; (iii) bypassing the authorized
LMS/LOS operational approval workflow; (iv) diverting company funds into
personal and associated beneficiary accounts; (v) fabricating operational
records to falsely depict successful customer disbursement entries; (vi)
utilizing the co-accused bank accounts for temporary routing/layering of
siphoned funds.
th
2.8. A Final Report/Chargesheet dated 15 July, 2025, was filed by the
Investigating Officer (“IO”) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class
(“JMFC”), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi. Furthermore, a supplementary
th
Chargesheet dated 10 February, 2026, was also filed before the Trial Court.
2.9. The role attributed to the petitioner in the Chargesheet is reproduced as
under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 3 of 11

“xxx xxx xxx


xxx xxx xxx”
3. The Criminal Case, being CR Cases 5295/2025, in connection with the
present FIR is pending adjudication before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 4 of 11

(“CJM”), South, Saket Courts, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of framing
of charges.
th
4. The latest Nominal Roll dated 29 June, 2026, furnished by the Jail
th
Authorities, shows that the petitioner has been in custody since 08 May,
th
2025, i.e., for a period of 01 year 01 month and 22 days till 29 September,
2026. Accordingly, presently, the petitioner has been in custody for an
approximate period of 01 year and a half year.

5. The case put forth by the petitioner in support of his application for
regular bail, is as follows:
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charges
in the matter have still not been framed and that the petitioner has been in
custody for the last one and a half years.
5.2. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, and the
investigation against the petitioner has been completed in all respects, thus,
the petitioner is no longer required by the investigating agency. The police
officials have recorded the disclosure statement of the petitioner and have
taken all information from him.
5.3. The entire criminal proceedings have been falsely transplanted on the
petitioner and the accountability of the role of various high bank officials,
decision makers have been ignored, to save the said persons.
5.4. The entire case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence and
there are no chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence whatsoever.
5.5. There exists no direct, indirect, or circumstantial cogent evidence to
connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover,
it is impractical for an employee to commit an offence of such a quantum.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 5 of 11

6. Per Contra , the present application is vehemently opposed by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State.
th
7. The case of the prosecution, as put forth in the Status Report dated 09
July, 2026, as well as the submissions made before this Court, is as follows:
7.1. The present FIR was lodged against the petitioner on the basis of the
complaint of the company which is a licensed NBFC under Companies Act,
1956 (“Companies Act”).

7.2. The petitioner was not merely an employee but was involved in
operational handling of loan accounts, and has embezzled and
misappropriated funds to the extent of Rs. 3,23,55,629/- (Rupees Three Crore
Twenty-Three Lacs Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty-Nine
Only).
7.3. The misappropriated funds have still not been recovered, and the
petitioner is guilty of misappropriating public money.
7.4. The investigation has established that the amount transferred into the
account of co-accused, subsequently routed back into the account of the
petitioner after retention of marginal amount, thereby, confirming the
coordinated financial routing and active conspiracy between both accused
persons.
7.5. The petitioner’s contention of being falsely implicated as a scapegoat
is untenable in light of the direct banking trail, digital evidence, forged
operational communications and beneficiary account linkage established
during interrogation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that this the
present is a case of a serious offence and the maximum sentence would be life
imprisonment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 6 of 11

9. This Court is further informed that the bail application of the co-
accused, who is not the financial beneficiary, has also been rejected by this
Court.
10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties this Court notes
the submission made by learned APP for the State that the role of the
petitioner herein stands corroborated by way of direct banking trail analysis,
beneficiary account mapping, digital and electronic evidence, forged
operational emails, transactional chronology correlation, witness statements,
and operational access analysis.
11. The petitioner is the beneficiary of the account and is guilty of
misappropriating huge public funds.
12. The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439 , held that
while considering bails in economic offences, a different approach is required
to be taken as such offences have public ramifications. The relevant excerpts
of the said judgement are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 7 of 11

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Fruitful reference may also be made to the judgment in the case of
Centrum Financial Services Ltd. Versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 13
SCC 286 , wherein, the Supreme Court, in almost similarly placed facts, while
cancelling the bail granted by the High Court made the following material
observations:
“1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 14-9-2020 [Jayant Kumar
Jain v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2103] passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 2442 of 2020
by which the High Court has allowed the said application
preferred by Respondent 2 herein and has directed that he be
released on bail in connection with FIR No. 128 of 2019 PS
Economic Offences Wing in New Delhi for the offences under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Penal Code, 1860,
the original complainant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein a non-banking financial company
(NBFC) lodged an FIR/complaint with the Economic Offences
Branch, New Delhi against the company Sri Aranath Logistics
Ltd. (formerly known as “LMJ Logistics Ltd.”), Respondent 2
herein Jayant Kumar Jain, Managing Director and others for the
offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B Penal
Code, 1860.
3. It was alleged against the accused-Respondent 2 herein that he
is the Managing Director of Aranath Logistics Ltd. engaged in the
business of multi-commodity trading of agricultural and non-
commodities agricultural. That by way of written agreement
accused availed loan credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 25 crores
for a term of 180 days from the complainant Company. It was
alleged that the said amount of Rs. 25 crores was disbursed in the
year 2017. It was alleged that the said amount of Rs. 25 crores
was required to be used by the company for its own purpose. It
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 8 of 11

was further alleged that for the purpose of repayment of loan, no
stock statement was submitted and mortgage was also not created
as agreed between the parties. It was further alleged that instead
of using the amount for the purpose mentioned in the agreement
the same was transferred to several fake/shell companies.
xxx xxx xxx
21. Thus, it has been found that the credit facility to the tune of Rs.
25 crores availed by LMJ Logistics Ltd. were not used for any
business purposes i.e. sale purchase of agri or non-agri products
but it has been rotated through shell entities and immediately
transferred to other company LMJ International Ltd. to square off
the liabilities through the shell companies.
xxx xxx xxx
24. All these aforesaid allegations and the material collected
during the course of the investigation which are being part of the
charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet are not taken note
of by the High Court and the High Court has just simply ignored
the same and has released Respondent 2 on bail by simply
observing that case arises out of a commercial transaction and
the dispute is of a civil nature. Therefore, the High Court has not
at all taken into consideration the relevant considerations while
granting bail. Even the High Court has not at all taken note of the
reasoning given by the learned Sessions Court while rejecting the
bail application of Respondent 2.
xxx xxx xxx
28. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., it is held by this Court in
para 11 as under: (SCC p. 428)
“11. It is a well-settled principle of law that while dealing
with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the
Court to take into consideration certain factors and they
basically are : (i) the nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to
the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the
Court in support of the charge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 9 of 11

29. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), it is observed
and held by this Court that while granting bail, the relevant
considerations are:
(i) nature of seriousness of the offence;
(ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused; and
(iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
(iv) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and
(v) likelihood of his tampering.
xxx xxx xxx
31. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the grounds on
which the High Court has released Respondent 2 on bail, we are
constrained (sic) to observe that in the instant case while dealing
with the application of the accused for grant of bail, the High
Court has completely lost sight of the basic principles
enumerated above. The High Court has not at all considered the
modus operandi adopted by the accused in commission of serious
offence of siphoning and/or transferring the huge sum to another
company through shell companies. The High Court has also not
taken into consideration the status report filed by the
investigating officer in which in detail it has been pointed out
how systematically the accused have committed the offence and
misappropriated/siphoned off the huge sum through shell
companies. Thus, it appears that the High Court has not
adverted to the relevant considerations and has granted the bail
mechanically by observing that the case arises out of a
commercial transaction .
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. This Court notes that economic offences involve criminal breach of
trust, systematic manipulation of financial processes and diversion of
institutional funds which constitute grave offences affecting financial
discipline institutional integrity and public confidence in regulated NBFC
system.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 10 of 11

15. It is to be noted that the plea of prolonged incarceration raised by the
petitioner does not dilute the gravity of the allegations and the strength of
evidence collected during investigation.
16. This Court also takes note of the fact that the amount embezzled by the
petitioner has still not been recovered.
17. This Court also takes note of the submission made by the learned APP
for the State that the petitioner has not denied the fact that the said money was
transferred by the petitioner himself to his own account as well as to the
account of the co-accused which has been returned to the account of the
petitioner.
18. The case is at nascent stage and therefore, this Court finds no merit in
the present bail application.
19. The present bail application is accordingly dismissed.
20. However, it is clarified that nothing contain herein shall be considered
as an expression on the merits of the case.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/KR




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
14:29:11
Page 11 of 11