Raj Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 103/2025 of Police Station Cyber North-West Delhi for offence under Section 317(2)/61(2)/112 of BNS.

After last date, status report was filed. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Naveen.

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. From records of National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), information was obtained leading to registration of the FIR, which revealed operation of several mule bank accounts in the area of North-West Delhi. Those accounts were being used for receipt and liquidation of the proceeds of cheating from across the country. Three of such mule bank accounts were identified and the same were being held by Mrs. Guneet Kaur Kalra, Mrs. Payal Mehra and Mr. Ramneek Tandon. Investigation has revealed that those accounts were opened by the main accused namely Sudhanshu Batra. The role ascribed to the present accused/applicant is that he withdrew money from those accounts on the basis of self-drawn cheques. As per prosecution, the self- cheque is allowed to be encashed provided the presenter submits his identity documents and it is on the basis of those identity documents that the accused/applicant was traced out.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that it is not believable that the accused/applicant, knowing the consequences, would so gullibly hand over his identity documents to the bank at the time of encashment of those self-cheques. Further, it is submitted that the main accused Sudhanshu Batra has already been granted bail by the Court of Sessions while the three account holders namely, Ramneek Tandon, Payal Mehra and Guneet Kaur Kalra were not even arrested.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO submits that Ramneek Tandon, Payal Mehra and Guneet Kaur Kalra have been bound down to appear before the trial court. It is contended by learned APP that the offence involved is of serious nature, so the accused/applicant does not deserve bail.

Considering the above circumstances, especially that the main accused Sudhanshu Batra has been granted bail and the first layer account holders were simply bound down and not arrested, I find no reason to further deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

Therefore, the 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. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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