BAIL APPLN. 3984/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010453042026 + BAIL APPLN. 3984/2026 SAHITYA SHUBHAM SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kartik Dabas, Ms. Priyanka Sachdeva, Mr. Harjas Singh, Mr. Akshit Kundu and Mr. Dhruv Tomar, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO, PS CYBER NORTH WEST .....Respondent Through: Mr.
Manoj Pant, APP with Ms. Kajal Bhandari, Mr. Sachin, Advs. Insp. Pawan Kumar and SI Naveen Kumar, P.S. Cyber/ NW Delhi. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that in compliance with the order dated 22.09.2026, the amount directed by this Court has been deposited.
3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Applicant neither contacted the complainant nor induced him to transfer any amount.
The cheated amount was neither credited to the Applicant’s account nor was he a beneficiary of the account into which it was transferred.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Applicant went to the concerned bank on the instructions of Abhishek and others with a self chequeThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 22:50:06 BAIL APPLN. 3984/2026 Page 2 of 3 and an Aadhaar card handed over to him. The cheque was already signed and did not bear the Applicant’s signatures. According to the Applicant, after withdrawing ₹9,50,000/-, the entire amount was handed over to the persons on whose instructions he had gone to the bank.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no material connecting the Applicant with Vikas Kumar, in whose account the amount was transferred, or with Neeraj, whose Aadhaar card was allegedly used.
It is also submitted that the Applicant is a second-year law student with no criminal antecedents and that his father is a cancer survivor.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the application and submits that the Applicant’s role is not based merely on the disclosure statement of a co- accused. CCTV footage allegedly shows the Applicant withdrawing ₹9,50,000/- from the concerned bank account.
7. Learned APP further submits that the Applicant used Neeraj’s Aadhaar card and signed documents in his name while withdrawing the amount.
Neeraj is stated to be a rickshaw-puller whose Aadhaar card had allegedly been taken by co-accused Manjeet Khanna on the pretext of providing employment, while Vikas Kumar’s account was allegedly used for receiving the cheated amount.
8. Learned APP further submits that despite notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, the Applicant did not join the investigation, following which NBWs were issued and proceedings under Section 84 BNSS were initiated.
Learned APP further submits that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required to ascertain his links with the other persons involved and the further movement of the withdrawn amount.
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and learned APP for the State andThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 22:50:06 BAIL APPLN. 3984/2026 Page 3 of 3 perused the record.
10. The presence of the Applicant at the bank and withdrawal of ₹9,50,000/- are not disputed. The defence of the Applicant is that he acted merely on the instructions of other persons and thereafter handed over the entire amount to them. However, the circumstances in which the Applicant came into possession of the self cheque and the Aadhaar card of a third person, coupled with the allegation regarding use of the said identity document, require investigation.
11.
This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that despite notices issued to the Applicant, he did not join the investigation and coercive proceedings thereafter came to be initiated against him. The fact that the chargesheet has been filed against a co-accused does not conclude the investigation qua the present Applicant.
12. Considering the specific role attributed to the Applicant, his conduct during investigation and the stated requirement of custodial interrogation, this Court does not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant.
13.
Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/prg/mThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 22:50:06