logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 442 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : Bail Appln. No. 2392 of 2026 & CRL.M.A. No. 18655 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Kumar Gaurav Versus State (NCT Of Delhi)
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Samridhi Dobhal, Lisa Pejwal, Apoorv Paliya, Utkarsh Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Hemant Mehla, APP.
Date of Judgment : 02-07-2026
Head Note :-
BNS - Section 318(4)/ 316(2)/61(2)/3(5)/112 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 5287,
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 674/2025 of Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi for offence under Section 318(4)/ 316(2)/61(2)/3(5)/112 BNS.

2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is that the main accused, namely Pranav allegedly cheated some students by collecting money from them on the pretext of arranging their admission in some college in Mumbai, but it turned out that he had no such connections. As regards the present accused/applicant, the allegation of prosecution is that he was involved in the offence as a conspirator and in his presence, money was paid to the main accused Pranav, who shared a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with the present accused/applicant.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is innocent and has been in jail since 02.02.2026. It is contended that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused/applicant. It is also submitted that since chargesheet has already been filed, no purpose would be served by keeping him in jail.

4. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Neeraj Kumar submits that the evidence as regards complicity of the accused/applicant is only that the complainant students identified the accused/applicant in the police station and stated that the accused/applicant used to be present whenever they paid money to the main accused Pranav. In addition to that, the IO submits that another piece of evidence against the accused/applicant is the disclosure statement of main accused Pranav, who stated in police custody that out of the cheated amount, he had withdrawn Rs.25,00,000/- from his bank account and handed it over to the accused/applicant. Apart from that, there is no evidence against the accused/applicant, according to learned APP for State.

5. Considering the above circumstances, especially the nature of evidence relied upon by prosecution, I find no reason to deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

6. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
 
  CDJLawJournal