BAIL APPLN./1274/2026 of PUNIT DHAMIJA Vs THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

% 22.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’], seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in FIR No. 170/2025 dated 08.04.2025, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, District Outer, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467,

468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’].

3. The aforesaid FIR arises out of allegations of a multi-victim investment fraud. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the prosecution alleges that an amount of approximately ₹2.56 lakh, forming part of the alleged proceeds, was received in his bank account.

4. During investigation, coercive proceedings were initiated against the applicant and he was subsequently declared a proclaimed person. The applicant disputes the validity of the said proceedings and has challenged the same separately. During the pendency of the present application, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the applicant joined investigation and deposited ₹2.56 lakh, which has since been verified by the Investigating Officer [IO]. A supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has complied with the directions of this Court, joined the investigation and deposited ₹2.56 lakh pursuant to the directions of this Court, which deposit stands duly verified, which deposit stands duly verified. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is no longer required.

6. It is contended that the applicant was declared a proclaimed person on account of service having been effected at an incorrect address and that the said proceedings have been separately challenged. Learned counsel also seeks parity with co-accused Rahul Khurana, who has been granted bail, contending that a similar role has been attributed to the accused persons.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the application and submits that the applicant already stands declared a proclaimed person and that the prosecution had effected service at his correct address. It is further submitted that the case concerns a multi-victim fraud involving more than 35 victims and, therefore, the deposit of ₹2.56 lakh by the applicant cannot, by itself, entitle him to anticipatory bail.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The applicant admittedly stands declared as a proclaimed person and has been evading the process of law. Though the proclamation proceedings have been challenged separately, the same have not been set aside till date. The subsequent joining of investigation and deposit of ₹2,56,000/-, pursuant to the interim directions of this Court, cannot by themselves efface his earlier conduct during investigation.

10. This Court also takes note of the fact that the allegations pertain to a multi-victim fraud. In these circumstances, the plea of parity with the co- accused does not persuade this Court to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the applicant, particularly having regard to his own conduct and the nature of the allegations.

11. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

12. The interim protection granted to the applicant therefore, stands vacated.

13. The tentative date of hearing fixed in this matter before the Court of Joint Registrar [Judicial] i.e. 13.10.2026 stands cancelled.

14. Pending application[s], if any, also stand[s] disposed of.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/b/PG