In a ruling delivered on 23 September 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sahitya Shubham Singh, a second-year law student, in connection with a cyber fraud case involving ₹9,50,000. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the circumstances under which the applicant came into possession of a self-cheque and a third person’s Aadhaar card, and whether he acted alone or as part of a larger network.
What the Court Decided
Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court dismissed Bail Application No. 3984/2026, filed by Sahitya Shubham Singh against the State Government of NCT of Delhi. The applicant had sought anticipatory bail (protection from arrest before being taken into custody) in a case registered by the Cyber Police Station, North West Delhi. The court found no grounds to grant the relief, citing the specific role attributed to the applicant, his conduct during investigation, and the stated requirement of custodial interrogation.
The order was passed after hearing Senior Advocate Amit Chadha for the applicant and Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant for the State. The hearing was conducted in hybrid mode.
The Allegations: A Withdrawal, a Cheque, and an Aadhaar Card
According to the prosecution, the applicant withdrew ₹9,50,000 from a bank account using a self-cheque and an Aadhaar card belonging to a third person, Neeraj, a rickshaw-puller. The Aadhaar card was allegedly taken by co-accused Manjeet Khanna on the pretext of providing employment. The cheated amount was transferred into the account of one Vikas Kumar. CCTV footage allegedly shows the applicant withdrawing the money.
The applicant’s defence, presented by his senior counsel, was that he went to the bank on the instructions of certain individuals named Abhishek and others. He claimed the cheque was already signed and did not bear his signature. After withdrawing the entire amount, he allegedly handed it over to those who had sent him. He further argued that he neither contacted the complainant nor induced any transfer, and that the cheated amount was neither credited to his account nor was he a beneficiary of the account into which it was transferred.
The court did not accept this defence at this stage. Justice Jain noted that the presence of the applicant at the bank and the withdrawal of ₹9,50,000 were not disputed. However, the circumstances in which he 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, required investigation.Conduct During Investigation: Notices Ignored
The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant’s role was not based merely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The APP submitted that despite notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the applicant did not join the investigation. Consequently, non-bailable warrants (NBWs) were issued, and proceedings under Section 84 BNSS were initiated.
The court took note of this conduct. It observed that despite notices issued to the applicant, he did not join the investigation, and coercive proceedings thereafter came to be initiated against him. The court also clarified that the fact that a chargesheet had been filed against a co-accused does not conclude the investigation qua the present applicant.
“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,” Justice Jain stated in the order.
Why This Matters for Ordinary Indians
This case highlights the increasing use of stolen or borrowed identity documents—especially Aadhaar—in financial fraud. It also underscores the courts’ reluctance to grant anticipatory bail when an accused has skipped investigation notices. The ruling reinforces that even if a person claims to be a mere courier of fraudulent funds, the court will consider the suspicious circumstances under which they handled identity documents and large sums of money.
For the common citizen, the case is a reminder that Aadhaar cards can be misused if shared, and that bank withdrawals using someone else’s ID can lead to serious criminal charges. It also shows that cooperating with police investigation is crucial; skipping summons can lead to warrants and weaken one’s case for bail.
The court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The order was uploaded on the Delhi High Court website forthwith.
Case: Sahitya Shubham Singh v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln. 3984/2026, Delhi High Court, decided on 23 September 2026 by Justice Madhu Jain.