Delhi HC Bails MTS Employee In Salary-Bill Fraud Case, Citing Limited Role As Co-Accused Withdrew Cash From His Account

The applicant, an MTS employee of the Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 34 and 120B IPC.

The alleged fraud involved unauthorised “Miscellaneous Dues” entries in salary bills, causing a government loss of approximately ₹1.44 crore; about ₹32.44 lakh was credited to the applicant’s salary account.

The chargesheet recorded that substantial amounts were transferred from the applicant’s account to co-accused Anjani Kumar Singh, and that several self-cheques were written or signed by Singh.

It also recorded that the applicant had no role in preparing, verifying or approving salary bills.

The applicant was arrested on 28 April 2026; his earlier bail applications were dismissed before the chargesheet was filed.

The State did not oppose bail, noting that the evidence was documentary and collected, and that the applicant had remained in custody since his arrest.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the procedural basis for seeking regular bail.

The Court applied the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” and relied on *Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate*, (2024) 12 SCC 660, including its reference to *Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra*, (2024) 9 SCC 813, for the proposition that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that courts should not deny bail merely to “play safe”.

The Court considered the chargesheet’s account that the applicant, an MTS employee, had no role in processing salary bills, while substantial sums from his account were transferred to or withdrawn by co-accused Singh through self-cheques.

Although the chargesheet alleged that the applicant permitted use of his account, his role appeared prima facie limited compared with that of the principal co-accused.

The investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the relevant salary, banking and audit records had been collected; the applicant had also been in custody since 28 April 2026, had no previous involvement and had satisfactory jail conduct.

In those circumstances, the Court found no purpose would be served by continued incarceration.

The State may seek cancellation of bail for breach of conditions; the trial court was requested to expedite proceedings, and the Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding bail and would not affect the merits at trial.