Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-000559-2026
Bail Matter No.133/2026
State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta
FIR No. 38/2025
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
26.05.2026
ORDER
1. This order will decide the application under Section
483 BNSS for regular bail filed on behalf of applicant/accused
Narendra Kumar Gupta.
Factual matrix:
2. The present case has been registered on the basis of
official complaints dated 06.08.2025 and 07.08.2025 filed by
Deputy Director (Planning), Department of Welfare of SCs, STs,
OBCs/GNCTD regarding illegalities committed by four
government officials in connivance with coaching institutes for
taking money from government exchequer under ‘Jai Bhim
Mukhyamantri Vikas Yojna’. The said scheme was launched by
the government in the year 2017 vide a Cabinet Note bearing
Decision No. 2526 dated 12.12.2017 by virtue of which coaching
fee with respect to a certain section of the students was to be paid
to the institutes and stipend was to be given for students by
DSCST. In the first phase, a notification was issued in the year
2018, wherein 16 institutes had participated for empanelment
under this scheme and 08 Institutes were empaneled. Initially,
the said
Yojna was meant only for SC category students who had
been preparing for competitive exams. Thereafter, certain
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 1 of 10
-- 1 of 10 --
amendments were approved in the year 2019 and some more
institutes were empanelled.
Case of the prosecution:
3. Applicant/accused Narendra Kumar Gupta is
Director of Takshila Academy Pvt. Ltd. which was registered on
11.03.2010. The said institute was empanelled on 14.11.2019 and
the MOA was signed on 26.02.2020. The said institute provided
coaching to 948 students.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the Institute did
not open any separate Bank Account, which was specifically
mandatorily required and it received Rs.3,07,20,000/- (Rs. 3.07
Crores) grant in 2nd Phase (Coaching Rs.2,56,00,000/- + Stipend
Rs.51,20,000/-).
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that
screening of data received from Institute & DSCST indicated that
46 students exist in lists of the institute of the applicant/accused,
who were also found having admissions in some other
empanelled Institutes. During investigation this ‘doubling issue’,
25 students joined investigation and out of those students, 05
students had received stipend from the Institute and 01 student
had received stipend twice i.e. from another Institute also.
During examination, 20 students narrated that they had not
attended any of the coaching class or attended only few classes
but as per records institute had put their names before DSCST for
claiming funds.
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 2 of 10
-- 2 of 10 --
6. It is averred that so far, 14 students and many
witnesses have named Director and the staff in their statements;
03 students stated that they had intimated the Institute for
withdrawing their admissions, but Institute kept their names on
the list and also submitted before DSCST. 04 students stated that
they had signed their attendance, in back dates, at the instance of
the Institute which indicates that they had not attended classes.
01 student stated that she had sought admission in paid batch, but
Institute used her name in
Yojana; 05 students stated that
Institute had forged their signatures.
7. It is further the case of the prosecution that the
Institute had also received funds from Govt. exchequer, in those
instances also, wherein the students had not been provided
coaching. It has also come up during investigation that some of
the students had not received stipend from Institute, so far, even
in those instances wherein funds had been received from
DSCST. 03 Employees of Institute also stated that they had
marked attendance of students, in back dates, at the instance of
Director of Institute/applicant accused Narendra Kr. Gupta.
8. Ld. PP for the State argued that the investigation is
pending and the employees of the applicant and the students who
were enrolled in the institute have to be interrogated. He argued
that the IO has informed that the applicant/accused may interfere
in the investigation by influencing the students as well as
employees and thus, hampering the fair investigation into the
case. He submitted that for fair investigation and to prevent the
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 3 of 10
-- 3 of 10 --
applicant from running away from the jurisdiction of this court,
the present application should be dismissed.
Arguments on behalf of the applicant/accused:
9. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that
the applicant/accused was arrested on 29.04.2026 and has been in
judicial custody since then. He further submitted that the
applicant/accused is a law-abiding citizen, permanent resident of
Delhi and Director of an educational institution namely M/s
Takshila Academy Pvt. Ltd. and he himself was actively engaged
in imparting coaching and education to students and has over the
past several years taught in various reputed coaching institutes
and educational institutions. He also submitted that the
allegations in the FIR pertain to alleged irregularities and
discrepancies in claims submitted by various coaching institutes
under the ‘Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna’ for the
coaching session 2021-2022. However, from March, 2020 till
August 2021, the applicant institution continuously conducted
coaching classes and duly complied with all procedures,
modalities, guidelines, and requirements as communicated by the
Department from time to time.
10. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that
the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the present
case as the Investigating Agency has adopted a pick and choose
policy qua the present applicant, in as much as there are multiple
similarly situated institutions to whom payments were released in
a similar manner, yet neither have they been arrayed as accused
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 4 of 10
-- 4 of 10 --
in the present case nor has any coercive action or arrest been
effected against them. He argued that the investigating agency
has completely failed to assign any specific allegation or disclose
any distinguishing feature so as to justify treating the applicant
differently from the other institutions or necessitating his arrest
in the present case.
11. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that
the applicant/accused has been never involved in any criminal or
unlawful activity in the past and has clean reputation in his
family and society as well as clean antecedents. He further
submitted that the applicant/accused has always joined the
investigation on multiple occasions and has extended full and
unconditional cooperation and is also willing to cooperate in
future. He argued that a considerable time has already passed
since the applicant/accused has been in judicial custody and the
allegations pertain solely to documentary and procedural aspects
and all the relevant records are already in the custody of ACB
and therefore, the same cannot be tampered with in any manner.
He submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi
and thus, there is no flight risk. Therefore, he has requested that
the applicant/accused may be released on bail.
Objection of the State:
12. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the State and the IO
have strongly opposed the application for bail. Ld. PP for the
State submitted that allegations against the applicant/accused are
serious in nature and the FIR was registered at the request of
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 5 of 10
-- 5 of 10 --
Department of SC/ST for undue benefits to the institute of the
applicant. He further argued that the matter is at a nascent stage
and investigation is still going on and the applicant/accused as
well as his employees and students have to be interrogated for
further investigation.
13. I have carefully considered the submissions of
Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused and Ld. PP for the State
and perused the case file as well as the report of the IO.
Examination & Analysis:
14. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant/accused
Narendra Kumar Gupta has been in judicial custody since
30.04.2026.
Case law on the point of Bail:
15. In the case of Siddharam Saltingappa Mhetre Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:
“3. The society has a vital interest in grant or
refusal of bail because every criminal offence
is the offence against the State. The order
granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect
balance between the conflicting interests,
namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the
interest of the society. The law of bails
dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on
the one hand, the requirements of shielding
the society from the hazards of those
committing crimes and potentiality of
repeating the same crime while on bail
and on the other hand absolute adherence
of the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence regarding presumption of
innocence of an accused until he is found
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 6 of 10
-- 6 of 10 --
guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.
...
127. Personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right and it should be curtailed
only when it becomes imperative according to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case."
16. Further, in the case of Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P.
(1978) 4 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are
grave. Defendants presumed innocent are
subjected to the psychological and physical
deprivations of jail life, usually under more
onerous conditions than are imposed on
convicted defendants. The jailed defendant
loses his job if he has one and is prevented
from contributing to the preparation of his
defence. Equally important, the burden of his
detention frequently falls heavily on the
innocent members of his family.”
17. In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs CBI Crl. Appeal
No.2178 of 2011 decided on 23 November, 2011, it was held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
“In bail applications, generally, it has been
laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to secure the appearance of
the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when
called upon.
The courts owe more than verbal respect to
the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to
be innocent until duly tried and duly found
guilty.”
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 7 of 10
-- 7 of 10 --
18. From the above judgments passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that the basic rule is bail and jail is an
exception except where circumstances suggest that the accused
may flee from justice or thwart the course of justice or repeat
offences or intimidate witnesses. In the present case, the
applicant/accused has been in custody since 30.04.2026.
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused has averred that
applicant/accused will comply with all the conditions imposed by
this court.
19. Keeping such allegations on the face of it, it is
admitted proposition of law that the bail is a rule and denial is an
exception. The IO had submitted during arguments that the
employees and students of the institute of the applicant/accused
have to be questioned and the applicant/accused can influence
the witnesses. However, perusal of record reveals that 26 days
have already passed since the remand of the applicant/accused.
The applicant cannot be kept in the jail for an indefinite period
on the ground that all the employees and the students are yet to
be examined and that the applicant can influence them. Since the
applicant/accused has been in judicial custody since 30.04.2026
and admittedly personally not required in investigation,
therefore, his continued incarceration will not solve any purpose.
There is a presumption of innocence of the accused and the
applicant/accused cannot be detained as a punitive measure.
Considering the above as well as the fact that the
applicant/accused has undertaken not to interfere in investigation
and further that he will cooperate in further investigation, further
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 8 of 10
-- 8 of 10 --
investigation will not be affected by the release of the
applicant/accused. In such circumstances, I am of the view that
bail cannot be denied to the applicant/accused as a punishment
when he would be facing the trial in accordance with law.
Therefore, the application for bail is allowed. Applicant/accused
Narendra Kumar Gupta is directed to be released on bail, on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety in the like sum and subject to the following conditions:
a. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of this Court.
b. The applicant shall report to the concerned IO at P.S.
ACB on the 15th and 30th day of each English Calender
Month.
c. The applicant shall not misuse the benefit of bail by
indulging in commission of similar offences in future.
d. The applicant shall not contact any of the witnesses of
the case, directly or indirectly, or extend any inducement
or threat to the witnesses.
e. The applicant shall appear before this Court on each and
every date of hearing.
f. The applicant shall intimate this Court in case of change
of his address.
If the applicant/accused is found to be violating any
of the above conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail.
The application is, accordingly, disposed off.
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 9 of 10
-- 9 of 10 --
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information and compliance.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the IO as well as
Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/26.05.2026
Bail App.133/26 in FIR No. 38/25 State vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta Page 10 of
10
-- 10 of 10 --