Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000272-2026
Bail Matter No. 65/2026
State Vs. (i) Ashish Rana S/o Sh. Raj Singh Rana;
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-000306-2026
Bail Matter No. 75/2026
State Vs. (ii) Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Singh;
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-000320-2026
Bail Matter No. 78/2026
State Vs. (iii) Pankaj Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal
FIR No. 4/2026
PS: ACB
U/s 7,7A PC Act r/w S.308(5)/61(2) BNS
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose off all three
separate bail applications moved on behalf of above named
accused persons, as they arise out of the same FIR.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that this is the third
application moved u/s 483 BNSS seeking regular bail,
filed on behalf of applicants/accused persons namely
Ashish Rana and Pankaj Kumar; whereas this is the first
application moved u/s 483 BNSS seeking regular bail,
filed on behalf of applicant/accused Ravi Kumar.
3. Separate replies of all the aforesaid bail applications have
been filed.
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 1 of 16
-- 1 of 16 --
4. Arguments on all these three bail applications have already
been heard on behalf of both the sides. I have duly
considered rival submissions made on behalf of both the
sides in the light of material available on record. I have
also duly considered the authorities cited at the Bar.
5. Sh. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocate, who appeared on
behalf of applicant/accused Ashish Rana, argued that the
said accused is totally innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case, on the basis of baseless allegations
due to some enmity and misconception; he is in custody
since 10.02.2026; he has already been granted bail in case
FIR No. 793/2025, u/s 33/38/58 Delhi Excise Act of PS
Narela; investigation qua him, has already been completed
and he is no more required for custodial interrogation in
any manner. He further submitted that previous two bail
applications, moved on behalf of said accused, were
withdrawn on 23.02.2026 and 24.02.2026. He further
submitted that the investigation qua said accused, is
already completed and he is in custody for last about
50 days, and thus, he may be enlarged on bail. He further
argued that none of the offences invoked in the FIR, or
even the offence under S.308(5) BNS is attracted against
the said accused, inasmuch as the only allegation
appearing against him, as per the case of prosecution, is
that he had acted just as a carrier for receiving the alleged
bribe money of 50,000/- from the complainant on the	₹
alleged date, time and place of the incident. He further
submitted that the said accused is permanent resident of
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 2 of 16
-- 2 of 16 --
Delhi and undertakes to abide by all the terms and
conditions as may be imposed upon him by the Court, if so
granted bail. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he
also placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in case titled as “Satender Kumar Antil v. State”
bearing SLP(Crl.) No.5191/2021 dated 11.07.2022.
6. Sh. Sumer Singh Boparai, Advocate, who appeared on
behalf of other two applicants/accused persons namely
Ravi Kumar and Pankaj Kumar, argued that both the said
accused have been falsely implicated in the present case;
the accused/applicant Pankaj Kumar is continuously in
custody since 10.02.2026, whereas accused/applicant
Ravi Kumar is continuously in custody since 16.02.2026;
the investigation qua both the said accused has already
been completed and thus, they are no more required for the
purpose of investigation; the investigating agency did not
obtain any PC remand of accused/applicant Pankaj Kumar,
whereas, only one day PC remand of applicant/ accused
Ravi Kumar was obtained, during which, nothing
incriminating was recovered either from his possession or
at his instance and thereafter, IO never sought police
remand of either of said two accused till date; the entire
evidence in documentary in nature; both the said accused
are public servants and have unblemished service record;
the material witnesses of prosecution are primarily official
witnesses and thus, there is no possibility of either of the
applicants/ accused persons tampering with the evidence,
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 3 of 16
-- 3 of 16 --
or influencing any of the prosecution witnesses in any
manner.
7. While placing on record one rough chart depicting the
distribution of work amongst the jail officials in the order
of their hierarchy, as also the division of jail premises into
External Department and Internal Department, Ld. Counsel
further argued that both these accused were in fact posted
in the External Department of Rohini Jail Premises during
the relevant period. He pointed out that applicant/ accused
Pankaj Kumar was posted in Dodi, whereas, applicant/
accused Ravi Kumar was posted in Welfare Department of
Rohini Jail. He contended that no investigation whatsoever
has been carried out by IO as regards the jail officials of
the rank of Deputy Superintendent, Assistant
Superintendent and Head Warders, who are named in the
FIR itself and instead of taking any action against them, IO
had illegally arrested these two accused persons without
any legal or justifiable ground.
8. Ld. Counsel further argued that the applicant/accused Ravi
Kumar had duly joined the investigation on 16.02.2026,
pursuant to notice u/s 35(3) BNSS dated 14.02.2026 issued
by IO, when he was mechanically arrested by Investigating
Agency without any compelling reason, as provided u/s
35(1)(b) and 35(5) of BNSS. In this regard, reliance was
also placed by him on celebrated judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra),
more particularly the order dated 15.01.2026 passed
therein.
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 4 of 16
-- 4 of 16 --
9. Another argument raised on behalf of applicant/accused
Ravi Kumar has been that FIR in question is registered u/s
7/7A of PC Act read with Section 61(2) BNS 2023, which
entails maximum punishment of 7 years and thus, the
present matter is within the teeth of decision of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Yudhveer Singh
Yadav v. CBI’ reported as 2024 SCC Online Del 7070.
Ld. Counsel further argued that addition of offence u/s
308(5) of BNS, 2023 during the course of investigation,
does not attribute any role to either of the said two accused
persons. He, therefore, urged that both these accused
persons deserve to be enlarge on bail.
10. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he also placed
reliance upon the following judgments:-
10.1 ‘Kanchaman Yonjan v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)’ having neutral citation 2024:DHC:5007;
10.2 ‘Pawan Yadav v. CBI Through Director’, bearing
Bail Application No. 144/2012;
10.3 ‘Ashok Kumar v. State of U.T. Chandigarh’, bearing
SLP (Crl.) No. 9949 of 2023;
10.4 ‘Zahur Haider Zaidi v. CBI’ reported as (2019) 20
SCC 404;
10.5 ‘Sunder Singh Bhati v. State’ reported as 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 134; and
10.6 ‘Dhiman Chakma v. State of Odisha (vig)’ bearing
Bail Application No. 6318 of 2025.
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 5 of 16
-- 5 of 16 --
11. Per contra, all the bail applications have been strongly
opposed by Ld. Chief PP for State, on the ground that all
these accused persons have played an important role in the
commission of offences alleged in this case. He submitted
that complainant namely Sh. Kunal had been receiving
repeated calls on his phone from his father Rakesh and
brother Aniket, who are inmates in Rohini Jail and were
allegedly under pressure, and they had been asking him to
pay bribe to the jail officials. He further submitted that
applicant/accused Ashish Rana had called the complainant
from his mobile phone no. 9311361680 on 03-02-2026 and
again on 09.02.2026 at 03:29 pm and after confirmation,
said accused had met with the complainant at CNG
Station, opposite Rohini Jail, where he demanded and
accepted the bribe amount of 50,000/- from him in the	₹
presence of panch witness and was caught red-handed, and
bribe amount was recovered from his possession. He
further contended that the applicant/accused Pankaj Kumar
was also caught red handed alongwith co-accused Dinesh
Dabas, while accepting the bribe money of 50,000/- from	₹
the complainant during the trap laid down by the raiding
team of PS ACB. He further submitted that applicant/
accused Ravi Kumar is equally involved in the commission
of offences involved in this case as his mobile phone is
also found containing incriminating material relevant to
the present case. He further pointed out that one paper slip
bearing relevant contents, was also seized from the
possession of said accused and CDR details of his mobile
phone indicates that he was in contact with the persons
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 6 of 16
-- 6 of 16 --
who remained in contact with illegal mobile numbers
which were allegedly operational inside the Rohini Jail.
12. The bail applications have also been opposed on the
grounds that investigation is still going on and more
evidence is likely to surface, which would establish the
connection of all these accused persons, as also the role
played by them in the commission of offences alleged
against them. Ld. Chief PP for State also pointed out that
voice sample of accused Ashish Rana is yet to be obtained;
and also that FSL report, as received from Chemistry
Division, is positive qua the said accused namely
Ashish Rana. He, therefore, urged that all the three bail
applications may be dismissed.
13. In brief, the FIR in question was registered on 09.02.2026,
on the basis of written complaint dated 09.02.2026 lodged
by Sh. Kunal at PS ACB, wherein he alleged that his father
and brother, who were accused in criminal case of
PS Raja Park, were lodged in Rohini Jail since the year
2020; the jail officials had made the lives of his father and
brother hell inside Rohini Jail for the last about 6-7 months
and they had to repeatedly pay bribe money to them, due to
which, they had to sell their house also. While narrating
several instances where such bribe money were allegedly
paid from time to time during the said period, he alleged
that on 04.02.2026, he had received call from his
father/UTP through mobile number from inside Rohini Jail
that jail officials would help him in release on parole for
15 days in case they would pay bribe money of
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 7 of 16
-- 7 of 16 --
1,50,000/-, which was followed by another call from his	₹
father, who having told him that he was being pressurized
by jail officials to pay the bribe money, failing which, they
had threatened him of being killed after being transferred
from said jail and thus, he had to transfer a sum of
47,000/- through PayTM on mobile number of one	₹
person namely Manish. Similarly, on 06.02.2026, he had
received another call from his father/UTP from inside the
Rohini Jail that jail officials were giving beatings to them
and were repeatedly pressurizing them to pay the bribe
money. He, thus, asked the complainant to bring
1,50,000/- at petrol pump situated near Rohini Jail. When	₹
the complainant did not go there on that day, he received
another call on 07.02.2026 from his father/UTP, who
informed him that due to non-payment of bribe by
complainant on 06.02.2026, he was tortured by the jail
officials and on the request of his father, the complainant
again transferred a sum of 50,000/- through PayTM on	₹
the same number of said Manish. He further alleged that he
had transferred various amounts through PayTM on other
PayTM numbers of various other persons, as per the details
mentioned in the said complaint. On 08.02.2026, he had
received another call from his father/UTP from inside the
Rohini Jail, who asked him about the reason for not paying
the bribe money to the jail officials,and he was being
harassed by them due to non-payment of such money.
On 09.02.2026, his brother/UTP also made call to the
complainant from inside Rohini Jail and told him that the
complainant would have to arrange for the bribe money
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 8 of 16
-- 8 of 16 --
under any circumstance and would have to pay the same to
the jail officials on that day itself, for which, the jail
officials i.e. Head Ravi, Dinesh or some other person/staff
to be deputed by them, would contact him through phone
and the complainant should pay the bribe money to them.
14. Accordingly, trap was laid down by the raiding team of
PS ACB. During the trap proceedings, complainant had
produced cash of 1,00,000/- in the form of 200 GC notes	₹
of the denomination of 500/- each and allegedly handed	₹
over 100 GC notes of 500/- each smeared with	₹
phenolphthalein powder, thus, amounting to 50,000/-, to	₹
applicant/accused Ashish Rana who had allegedly come at
petrol pump near Rohini Jail and said GC notes smeared
with phenolphthalein powder, were recovered from his
possession. Thereafter, the complainant received several
calls in between 05:30 pm to 06:21 pm on 09.02.2026 and
he was asked to pay further amount of 50,000/- to Jail	₹
Warden who would visit him. Accordingly, further trap
was laid, during which, the complainant handed over
remaining 100 GC notes of 500/- each, duly smeared	₹
with phenolphthalein powder, to co-accused Dinesh Dabas
and applicant/accused Pankaj Kumar, who had come on
one white colour scooty, on which, applicant/accused
Pankaj Kumar was sitting as pillion rider and said GC
notes were recovered from the possession of co-accused
Dinesh Dabas. Thereafter, applicant/ accused Ravi Kumar
was asked to join investigation, through Notice under
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 9 of 16
-- 9 of 16 --
S.35(3) of BNSS dated 14.02.2026 for 16.02.2026, on
which date, he was also arrested in this case.
15. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant/accused
Ashish Rana was known to UTP Ravi Chhikara lodged in
Rohini Jail and as per instruction of said UTP, accused
Ashish Rana had spoken to the complainant on
03.02.2026, as also on 09.02.2026 and after confirmation
received from the complainant, the said accused had gone
to CNG Station situated near Rohini Jail on 09.02.2026,
wherefrom, he was allegedly caught red handed while
accepting the bribe money of 50,000/- from the	₹
complainant. Apart from one case under S. 33/38 of Delhi
Excise Act with PS Narela, he is not shown to be
previously involved in any other criminal case.
16. Likewise, the role ascribed to applicant/accused Pankaj
Kumar is that he was also caught red handed, while he
alongwith co-accused Dinesh Dabas had gone to receive
bribe money of 50,000/- from the complainant on the	₹
alleged date, time and place of incident in question. Even,
as per the case of prosecution, the alleged bribe money of
50,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-	₹
accused Dinesh Dabas and not from the possession of
applicant/accused Pankaj Kumar.
17. The role attributed to the applicant/accused Ravi Kumar is
that one mobile connection number, registered in his name,
was illegally used in jail premises for making several calls
to different persons from 31.08.2024 onwards till
03.02.2026.
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 10 of 16
-- 10 of 16 --
18. In response to specific query of the Court, IO had informed
that no investigation has been carried out so far in order to
ascertain whether the person named as ‘Head Ravi’ in the
FIR, is applicant/ accused Ravi Kumar, or some other jail
official. This fact assumes importance in the backdrop of
the fact that applicant/accused Ravi Kumar has taken
specific plea in the bail application that he was posted as
‘Warder’ in the Welfare Department and was posted at
In/Out Gate to the External Department of Rohini Jail
during the relevant period. Not only this, said accused has
also annexed certain documents appearing from page
nos.50 to 54 of the bail application, in support of such
assertions. However, reply to his bail application, as filed
before the Court, is found to be completely silent on this
aspect. Ld. Counsel of applicant/accused Ravi Kumar, on
instructions, stated at Bar that person referred to as ‘Head
Ravi’ in the FIR in question, is one Ravi Ahlawat, posted
as Head Warder in Internal Department of Rohini Jail.
While referring to relevant provisions of Delhi Prison
Rules, Ld. Counsel of applicant/ accused also contended
before the Court that officials posted in the Internal
Department of Jail Premises, are altogether different from
the officials posted in External Department of such Jail
Premises, in order to bring home his point that it was in
fact said Ravi Ahlawat, who is posted as Head Warder in
Internal Department of Rohini Jail Premises, who was in
fact actually named in the FIR, however, IO has wrongly
arrested the applicant/accused Ravi Kumar without
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 11 of 16
-- 11 of 16 --
recording any compelling reasons in terms of S. 35(1)(b)
and 35(5) of BNSS.
19. During the course of arguments, IO was asked by the
Court as regards the investigation, if any, carried out in
respect of jail officials of the rank of Head Warder,
Assistant Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent, who
are named in the FIR itself, on which, IO informed the
Court that investigation is being carried out by him in
order to probe the role of said jail officials and he assured
the Court that proper investigation shall be carried out by
him in that regard in fair and independent manner.
20. Be that as it may, the question which arises for
consideration before the Court is whether these three
accused persons namely Ashish Rana, Ravi Kumar and
Pankaj Kumar deserve to be enlarged on bail, or not.
21. There is no substance in the submission raised on behalf of
State that in view of withdrawal of previous two bail
applications moved on behalf of applicants/accused
persons namely Ashish Rana and Pankaj Kumar, their bail
applications are not maintainable as no new ground has
emerged thereafter, for the simple reason that their
previous two bail applications were simply dismissed as
withdrawn and were not decided on merits.
22. Though, IO has mentioned in replies to bail applications
under consideration that more evidence has surfaced
during subsequent investigation, however, entire replies
are found to be silent as to why these applicants/accused
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 12 of 16
-- 12 of 16 --
persons are required to be further detained in custody for
the purpose of investigation of this case, and/or what
purpose would be served by keeping them behind the jail.
The applicants/accused persons cannot be deprived of their
personal liberty merely because further investigation is
going on, or that some of the persons including UTP Ravi
Chhikara, could not be got joined during investigation of
this case, or that voice sample of accused Ashish Rana is
yet to be obtained.
23. It is an undisputed fact that mobile phone of complainant
and accused persons, containing alleged audio recordings
prior to trap proceedings, have already been seized and got
deposited in FSL. It is nowhere the case of investigating
agency that applicants/accused persons are not permanent
residents of Delhi and are flight risks. The entire evidence
is mainly documentary in nature and there is nothing on
record to show that applicants/accused persons are in a
position to tamper with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
24. In so far as applicants/accused persons namely Ashish
Rana and Pankaj Kumar are concerned, they are
continuously in custody since 10.02.2026, whereas,
applicant/accused Ravi Kumar is continuously in custody
since 16.02.2026. Accused Pankaj Kumar and Ravi Kumar
are not shown to be previously involved in any other
criminal case. Both are public servants and are stated to be
unblemished service record. Investigation qua all these
applicants/ accused persons is shown to have already been
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 13 of 16
-- 13 of 16 --
completed. Moreover, investigation may take considerable
time even as per the submissions made by IO as role of jail
officials named in the FIR, as also role of other jail
officials/ private persons whose names have surfaced
during the course of investigation carried out so far, is still
underway.
25. Though, it is mentioned in reply filed by IO that
applicants/ accused persons may influence the witnesses
and may tamper with the evidence in the event of grant of
bail to them, however, neither any concrete basis of such
apprehension is disclosed in the replies, nor shown before
the Court during the course of submission.
26. In view of reasons mentioned hereinbefore and keeping in
view overall facts and circumstances of the case, including
the period of incarceration of applicants/ accused persons,
the nature of evidence alleged against them, the role
allegedly played by them in the commission of the crime,
Court is of the view that all these three bail applications
deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, all three accused
persons namely Ashish Rana, Ravi Kumar and Pankaj
Kumar are admitted to bail on their furnishing personal
bond in the sum of 50	₹ ,000/- each with one surety each in
the like amount, however, subject to the following
conditions, :-
26.1 That applicants/accused persons shall join the
investigation in this case as and when so required by
the IO;
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 14 of 16
-- 14 of 16 --
26.2 That the applicants/accused persons shall not try to
contact or influence, directly or indirectly,
complainant or any other witness of present case and
shall not tamper with evidence;
26.3 That applicants/accused persons shall not misuse the
liberty of bail by indulging in commission of similar
offence(s) in future;
26.4 That applicants/accused persons shall appear before
the Court on each and every date of hearing, when
so required;
26.5 That applicants/accused persons shall not leave the
country without prior permission of the Court;
26.6 That applicants/accused persons shall intimate to the
Court in case of change of their residential address;
and
26.7 In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions imposed by the Court, it shall be open
for the State to apply for cancellation of bail
being granted to the applicants/ accused persons
herein.
27. All these three bail applications stand disposed off in the
aforesaid terms.
28. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the IO, as well as to
Ld. Counsels for the applicants/accused persons, as
requested.
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 15 of 16
-- 15 of 16 --
29. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on merits of the case and the observations
made hereinbefore, are solely for the purpose of deciding
the bail applications in hand.
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge, PC Act (ACB)-01
RACC, New Delhi.
02.04.2026(r)
FIR No.4/2026, PS : ACB Page 16 of 16
-- 16 of 16 --