Delhi HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Cheating Investor Of Rs 72.27 Lakh, Citing Project Work Done And Nearly 5-Year FIR Delay

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in an FIR registered under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused induced the complainant to invest approximately ₹72.27 lakh in Reno Infocom Pvt. Ltd. for a BSNL/NOFN cable-laying project and to purchase project equipment.

The applicant was arrested on 2 August 2026; his earlier bail applications were dismissed by the Magistrate and Sessions Court.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s alleged central role, his failure to join the investigation, and the need to trace funds and identify beneficiaries.

The complainant also alleged that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender in another case.

By the time this application was decided, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The application was made under Section 483 BNSS, which provides the High Court with power to grant regular bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 420/34 IPC.

The Court considered the circumstances relevant to the bail decision, including the nature of the allegations, the stage and completion of the investigation, the time already spent in custody, the likely duration of trial, and the co-accused’s bail status.

No judicial precedent was cited, and the judgment does not set out a separate general test for granting bail.

The Court noted that the complainant’s payments were made between 2018 and January 2021, while the FIR was registered in December 2025.

It also considered the status report’s account that Reno Infocom received about ₹53 lakh from the project contractor, completed work worth about ₹32.69 lakh, and undertook work at the project site.

On that material, the Court held that, at the prima facie stage, fraudulent intent could not be conclusively established and that the project’s non-completion might have resulted from other factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic; culpability would be determined at trial.

The Court further relied on the delay in registration of the FIR, the grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused and the absence of a substantial distinction in their roles.

It accepted that the applicant’s affidavit disclosed two other FIRs and that the applicant had produced an Allahabad High Court order granting interim protection in the case in which he was said to have been declared a proclaimed offender.

With the investigation complete, the charge-sheet filed, and trial likely to take time, the Court found further incarceration unnecessary.

Conditions included not leaving India without prior court permission, attending court hearings, joining investigation when called, keeping the investigating officer informed of current contact and residential details, and not engaging in criminal activity, contacting prosecution witnesses, or tampering with evidence.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.