BAIL APPLN./3003/2026 of ANGAD SINGH CHANDHOK Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI on 21 September 2026

O R D E R

% 21.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’] read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’] on behalf of the applicant, Angad Pal Singh @ Angad Singh Chandok, seeking regular bail in RC No. 219 2014 E0013, registered at Police Station CBI / EO-I, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’] and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’].

BRIEF FACTS

3. Briefly stated, RC No. 219 2014 E0013 was registered by the CBI on 24.07.2014 on the complaint of Union Bank of India, Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi, alleging fraudulent availing of credit facilities of approximately ₹5.85 crore by M/s National Traders on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and transactions concerning property bearing No. J-7/53, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, offered as security to the Bank. The applicant [A-2] is alleged to have participated in the transactions concerning the said property and in routing part of the loan amount through entities stated to be under his control. The charge-sheet was filed on 05.01.2016 and cognizance was taken on 26.02.2016.

4. The applicant was granted regular bail on 14.03.2016. Thereafter, owing to his non-appearance, proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated and he was declared a proclaimed offender. He was subsequently deported from the United States and arrested by the CBI on 24.05.2025 and has since remained in judicial custody [JC]. His application for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Special Judge on 08.06.2026 after which charges were framed on 14.07.2026. The matter is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence [PE]. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED

5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant on merits submits that the principal allegation concerns property bearing No. J-7/53, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. According to the learned counsel, portions of the said property were transferred by the applicant’s father to the applicant and were subsequently sold by him, whereas the credit facility of approximately ₹5

crore was availed by his father. It is contended that although certain amounts from the loan transaction were transferred to firms associated with the applicant, the applicant himself was not the borrower.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the applicant is facing a number of other cases arising out of similar allegations and has already been granted bail in those matters. Reliance is placed upon the bail orders passed in the other cases investigated by the CBI and the EOW to contend that the concerned Courts were aware of the circumstances of his stay in the United States, subsequent deportation and apprehension in India while granting him bail. It is, therefore, urged that continued detention in the present case alone is not warranted.

7. It is also submitted that the applicant would reside with his cousin brother in India and that his travel documents are not in his possession. Learned counsel submits that the applicant is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court to secure his presence during trial.

8. Per contra, learned SPP appearing for the CBI opposes the application and submits that the applicant had earlier been granted bail but thereafter remained outside the country for approximately nine years. It is submitted that several members of his family also left India and that three of them continue to remain absconding. According to the learned SPP for CBI, the applicant was ultimately deported from the United States and was arrested on his arrival in India on 24.05.2025.

9. It is further submitted that the allegations are not confined to an isolated banking transaction. The CBI contends that the applicant and his family members are involved in cases involving substantial amounts allegedly obtained from several banks and that the present case also involves allegations of forgery, including forgery of signatures in documents relating to property transactions. It is submitted that charges have already been framed and the applicant ought to face trial.

10. Learned SPP for the CBI further submits that the applicant's previous conduct gives rise to a serious apprehension of his absconding, if released on bail. It is contended that the mere deposit or non-possession of travel documents would not adequately address such apprehension, particularly when, according to the prosecution, the applicant had remained beyond the reach of the investigating agency for several years.

11. It is lastly submitted that the applicant had earlier sought interim bail on medical grounds, which was dismissed as withdrawn, and that no member of his immediate family is presently stated to be residing in India.

12. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant reiterates that different Courts, despite being aware of the applicant's stay in the United States and subsequent deportation, have granted him bail in the other cases. It is submitted that there is, therefore, no justification for continuing his incarceration in the present case and that any apprehension regarding his presence can adequately be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

13. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant as well as the learned SPP for CBI and has perused the material placed on record.

14. The applicant had earlier been granted regular bail in the present case on 14.03.2016. Thereafter, he stopped appearing before the learned Trial Court, which led to issuance of non-bailable warrants [NBWs] , initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC and his eventual declaration as a proclaimed offender. He remained outside India for several years and was arrested by the CBI on 24.05.2025 after being deported from the United States. Thus, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the applicant’s availability for trial cannot be said to be unfounded and has to be considered in light of his own conduct in the present proceedings.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the fact that the applicant has been granted bail in other cases involving similar allegations, despite the Courts concerned being aware of his stay in the United States and subsequent deportation. However, the said orders cannot be considered as being determinative of the present application. The applicant’s entitlement to bail has to be examined in the context of the present proceedings, where, despite having been granted bail, he failed to remain available before the learned Trial Court and was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender.

16. The submission that the applicant is no longer in possession of his travel documents and is willing to abide by stringent conditions has also been considered. However, in view of his previous conduct after grant of bail in this very case, this Court is not persuaded that such conditions would, by themselves, sufficiently address the apprehension regarding his continued presence during trial.

17. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the applicant’s conduct after grant of bail in the present case and the consequent apprehension regarding his availability during trial, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge him on regular bail at this stage.

18. Accordingly, the present bail application for grant of regular bail is dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

19. Nothing hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

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

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

22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2026/PG