Supreme Court of India
NAND KUMAR YADAV VS. SHAMSHAD AHMAD on 26 October 2026
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)……………….. Diary No(s).50264/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2025
in BAIL APPLN. No.1879/2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi]
NAND KUMAR YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 309118/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA
No.309120/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE
DEFECTS, IA No. 309116/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 309119/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 309115/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)
Date : 26-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Nandita, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manu Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Sampan, Adv.
Mr. Asra Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amber Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gantavya Basishtha, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav, Adv.
Mr. Akhilesh Vikram Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Ramjee Pandey- 2376, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
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
1. Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2026.10.28 10:36:43 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
3. The petitioner, a victim of systemic cheating and financial fraud, challenges order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi, whereby bail has been granted to the first respondent, who is one of the accused.
4. The grounds urged to seek cancellation of bail are, inter alia, that the first respondent poses a flight risk, and the co- accused person who was also granted bail has already absconded to Dubai. The submission, thus, is that there are chances that the first respondent will also escape the consequences of law. It is also argued that the High Court has not imposed rigorous conditions while granting bail and certain instances of misuse of the concession of bail have emerged.
5. Though the brilliant young lawyer representing the petitioner has argued the case at length, almost persuading our interference with the impugned order, it appears to us that instead of calling upon the first respondent at this stage, the interests of the petitioner and other victims of the crime can be adequately protected by disposing of this Special Leave Petition with the following directions:
(i) The first respondent is directed to deposit his original passport with the investigating agency, if not already done. He shall also file an affidavit stating that no other passport has been obtained by him in his original name or any other name;
(ii) In the event that there are instances of misuse of the concession of bail, the petitioner or the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail by approaching the
High Court;
(iii) The investigating agency is directed to attach the immovable properties of respondent No. 1 or his associates as a security measure; and
(iv) Respondent No. 1 shall not make any direct or indirect attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
6. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DY. REGISTRAR