Mr. Sachin Chawla and Mr. Trideep Singh, Advocates v. STATE THROUGH SHO PS RANI BAGH

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3625/2025 SACHIN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chawla and Mr. Trideep Singh, Advocates. versus STATE THROUGH SHO PS RANI BAGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 23.09.2025 CRL.M.A. 28416/2025 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 3625/2025 3. By way of this application, the applicant seeks the grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing No. 0252/2025 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/406/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter, ‘IPC’). 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that one Prateek Bajaj and one Mayank Bajaj, complainants herein, who are the Directors of the Bagage Porter Pvt. Ltd., had allegedly contacted the present applicant, Sachin Kumar, and his co-director, Bob Singh, of M/S HBF Direct Ltd., i.e. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/10/2025 at 15:13:42 the accused company, in January 2022, for securing a DGCA licence for operating baggage porter services. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused company had demanded an initial sum of ₹4,95,600/- in cash, for which a receipt was also issued, which was followed by the execution of a commercial consultancy agreement dated 21.05.2022 between the complainants and the accused company stipulating a fees of about ₹32,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, complainants had made payments exceeding ₹20,00,000/- to the accused company. Allegedly, in the process, the accused company had introduced the complainants to one Globant Consultancy LLP and its director, co-accused Vandana Nair, who had insisted upon further payments. Thereafter, some additional amounts were also paid by the complainants. Further, on 17.10.2023, a forged DGCA licence dated 04.09.2023, bearing the signature of one Mr. Arun Kumar, who had demitted office in January 2023, had been emailed to the complainants. Based on these allegations, the present case was registered. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the alleged email had been sent by a common email ID of the accused company. Moreover, it is pointed out that the present case is wholly based on documentary evidence and does not assign any specific role to the present applicant. In this regard, it is contended that it remains an admitted position that the complainants had been directed not to contact the present applicant in relation to the alleged transactions; instead, it was decided that co-accused Bob Singh, the applicant‟s co-director, would be taking care of the same. Furthermore, it is argued that no other evidence specifically linking the applicant with the case is placed on record. Lastly, it is submitted that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/10/2025 at 15:13:42 applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation, and thus, the present application be allowed. 6. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that the allegations qua the accused company are grave, involving the fabrication of a license which pertains to DGCA, which is a government agency, bearing false signatures of an officer who had already demitted the office at the relevant point of time. It is specifically argued that the co-director, Bob Singh, had resigned from the accused company way back in 2023 and presently remains untraceable. It is also contended that pending investigation, the present applicant had been served twice on 18.08.25 and 11.09.25 in an attempt to seek assistance qua these financial transactions; however, he has given evasive replies each time and has not cooperated in the investigation till date; thus, the present application be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State, and has perused the material on record. 8. In a nutshell, the allegations against the accused persons are that, pursuant to the execution of a commercial agreement for seeking consultancy services of the accused company in respect of obtaining a DGCA license, the complainants had been induced to part with large sums of money. This Court further notes that a forged licence dated 04.09.2023, purportedly issued by the DGCA, bearing the signature of the officer who had already demitted the office in January 2023, had been e-mailed to the complainants. 9. This Court notes that it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant, despite being the director, had remained This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/10/2025 at 15:13:42 distant from specific transactions which is evidenced by certain emails, which render him unaware as to the forgery and cheating of documents. However, this Court is unable to concede to this contention at the present stage, as the investigation is still at the initial stage. It is noted that the co-accused Bob Singh has not yet been traced. Furthermore, the record also suggests involvement of one Vandana Singh of Globant Consultancy LLP, who was introduced to the complainants by the accused persons allegedly as a part of their conspiracy to cheat them. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the interrogation of the present applicant, who emerges as a prime link in the sequence of events, is crucial in the present investigation. His custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain details on aspects of payments, money trail, apprehension of other accused persons, etc. 10. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations of cheating and issuing forged license under the name of a retired IAS officer, and necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 11. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 12. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 13. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/A