Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3582/2026 of KUMAR CHANDRA NAYAK Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 23 September 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010405012026 + BAIL APPLN. 3576/2026 SUSANT KUMAR MOHANTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Mr. Debasish Bhattacharya, Mr. Om Parkash Yadav, Mr. Sandip Munian, Mr. Hemant Kumar Sinha and Mr. Jai Shanker Panchariya Advs. versus
$~14 & 15
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010405012026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3576/2026
SUSANT KUMAR MOHANTY
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Mr. Debasish
Bhattacharya, Mr. Om Parkash Yadav,
Mr. Sandip Munian, Mr. Hemant
Kumar Sinha and Mr. Jai Shanker
Panchariya Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant along with Ms. Kajal
Bhandari, Mr. Sachin, Advs.
~15
#
CNR No. DLHC010406142026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3582/2026
KUMAR CHANDRA NAYAK
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Mr. Debasish
Bhattacharya, Mr. Om Parkash Yadav,
Mr. Sandip Munian, Mr. Hemant
Kumar Sinha and Mr. Jai Shanker
Panchariya Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manoj Pant along with Ms. Kajal
Bhandari, Mr. Sachin, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 23.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present applications, being BAIL APPLN. 3576/2026 and BAIL APPLN. 3582/2026, have both been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), in connection with FIR No. 19/2026 dated 19.01.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 318(4), 319(2) and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS’) registered at IFSO/CCU, Special Cell, Dwarka, Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the petitioners are nowhere mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioners are not beneficiaries of the cheated account, as no amount was received in their accounts. It is submitted that, whether the case pertains to digital arrest or an online game, the petitioners have no concern with these transactions. The petitioners are, however, ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the petitioners are directors of M/s Apex Court Construction Pvt. Ltd. He further submits that the account in question is in the name of their company and has eight pan-India cyber fraud complaints against it. Approximately Rs. 47 lakhs relating to the present complaint was received in this account.
5. Learned APP submits that, despite service of notices, the petitioners have failed to join the investigation. The total amount received in the account of the company in connection with these pan-India cyber complaints is approximately Rs. 2.5 crores. The petitioners, being directors of the company, are fully liable, as they are the authorised signatories of the bank account and their mobile numbers and email IDs are duly registered with the bank. It is, therefore, submitted that the application be dismissed.
6. As per the case of the prosecution, there are eight pan-India cyber fraud complaints against the account in question, which is maintained in the name of the company, wherein both the petitioners are the authorised signatories.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the involvement of the company account in multiple pan-India cyber fraud complaints, the substantial amount allegedly received in the said account, and the petitioners' failure to join the investigation despite service of notice, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/prg/yt