Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: State v Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi
FIR No. 40/2025
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
27.10.2025
ORDER
1. The Applicant/Accused Keshav Joshi @ Keshab
Dutt Joshi has filed an application seeking grant of regular bail
under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No. 40/2025 dated
22.10.2025 registered under Section 7A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) at P.S.
Anti Corruption Branch, GNCT Delhi.
Brief facts:-
2. The factual matrix of the present matter is as
follows:
a. The above mentioned case was registered on the
complaint of Dr. Bonus Reddy Pallipati, an Advocate, Supreme
Court of India, against Keshav Joshi S/o Sh. C.B. Joshi R/o
521/12, Adarsh Mohalla, Moujpur, Delhi, aged 56 years,
operating as a Deed Writer, near the office of Sub-Registrar-I,
Kashmiri Gate.
b. In the said complaint, he stated that six months
back, he had purchased a Property No. 9807, situated at Ahata
Thakur Das, Sarai Rohilla, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi but he
could not get the same registered at that time. He further stated
that on 02.09.2025, he visited the Office of Sub-Registrar-l,
Kashmere Gate (Central), Delhi to know the procedure and
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
further course for which he wanted to meet the Sub-Registrar but
was not allowed to enter. Someone, seated there, asked him to
meet Mr. Keshava Joshi, a Deed Writer, sitting outside the
Office. He has mentioned in his complaint that on the same day,
he met Mr. Keshava Joshi who gave his contact no. 9811534626
and asked him to send him the copies of property documents and
to pay E-fee & E Stamp Fee. Further, he assured him to do all
things till final registration.
d. He further stated in his complaint that on
30.09.2025, the complainant purchased Stamp Papers and
prepared documents and applied thereof. On 03.10.2025, he got
appointment for registration on 06.10.2025 at 02:00 PM. On
06.10.2025, he completed some formalities and even on his
asking, the parties were not allowed to meet or appear before
Sub-Registrar. Mr. Joshi alongwith concerned clerk was doing
all things. Thereafter, he asked them to leave.
e. The complainant also stated that on 09.10.2025, Mr.
Keshava Joshi sent a PDF through WhatsApp from his Mobile
No. 9811534626 over his Mobile No.9000224732 which showed
Registration No. 2025/19/1/12691 in Book No. I, Volume No.
12828, Page No. 67 to 102 got approved pertaining to the said
property. Thereafter, on asking for original documents, he started
demanding money i.e. Rs.3 Lakhs bribe on behalf of Sub-
Registrar from him but after a long bargain, it was settled at
Rs.1.60 Lakhs.
f. He further mentioned in his complaint that initially,
reluctantly, he paid amount of Rs.10,000/- as an advance to him
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
through PhonePe app vide UTR No.616381292431 dated
06.10.2025. Thereafter, he visited and contacted him time and
again to settle it at some low amount but he was completely
adamant over it. Repeatedly, he was demanding on behalf of
Sub-Registrar, against delivery of Registered Documents. The
complainant was in trouble as he was not getting Registered
Sale Deed and bribe was being asked in open. Therefore, he
requested that legal action be initiated against all erring officials.
Entrapment Proceedings:-
3. On 22.10.2025 at about 11:00 AM, ACP Jarnail
Singh, P.S. ACB assigned Insp. Bhagwan Singh to attend the
complaint of the complainant who called the panch witness Sh.
Kartic Kumar Karamkar and introduced to Dr. Bonus Reddy
Palipati, Advocate. Panch witness Sh. Kartic Kumar Karamkar
made enquiry from the complainant and verified the complaint.
Thereafter, the complainant handed over the bribe amount of
Rs.50,000/- to Insp. Bhagwan Singh in the denomination of 100
notes of Rs. 500/-.
4. The entrapment proceedings were conducted. As per
the panch witness, the Applicant/Accused had demanded and
accepted bribe of Rs. 50,000/-. The property documents were
also seized.
5. Insp. Jai Bhagwan apprehended Keshav Joshi. FIR
under Section 7A POC Act, 1988 was registered at P.S. Anti
Corruption Branch, Delhi.
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
Investigation:-
6. During investigation, the Applicant/Accused
Keshav Joshi disclosed that he works as Deed Writer in the Sub-
Registrar Office, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. He also disclosed that
the complainant, Dr. Bonus Reddy Palipati, came to his office
for the first time in the month of September, 2025 for getting a
property bearing No. 9807, Ahata Thakur Dass, Sarai, Rohilla,
Delhi registered. After checking the documents, he had told the
complainant that there are many discrepancies in the documents
hence, registry of the property will be difficult.
7. He further disclosed that on 06.10.2025, registry
was done and on request of the complainant, accused met the
Reader to Sub-Registrar-I, Sh. Singla and negotiated for not
putting the stamp of MCD BOOKED in the fresh registered
documents of the property. Reader, Mr. Singla demanded
Rs.1,50,000/- for the said work for giving it to the officers.
Thereafter, Applicant/Accused Keshav Joshi informed the
complainant about the said demand and after that the accused
had collected the original Sale Deed from the delivery counter on
behalf of the complainant. There was no MCD BOOKED stamp
on the fresh registered document as per deal with the Reader, Mr.
Singla. Then the Applicant/Accused informed the complainant
that he had collected the document and he will have to pay the
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as decided.
8. On 23.10.2025, accused Keshav Joshi was produced
before the Hon’ble Court at RAC, Delhi and was remanded for
14 days’ Judicial Custody.
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
Submissions on behalf of the Applicant/Accused:
9. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Accused submitted
that the Applicant/Accused is aged about 56 years old and
practicing Advocate, enrolled with Delhi Bar Council having
enrollment No. D/1230/2019, having deep roots in the society
and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice.
10. He also submitted that the Applicant/Accused is a
person of clean antecedents and has previously never been found
involved in any matter. He argued that the Applicant/Accused
has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of false
statement of the complainant, with due deliberation, mala-fide
intentions and ulterior motives.
11. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Accused also
submitted that the Applicant/Accused has been victimised and
the allegations which are levelled against him are false and
baseless in totality. He submitted that the detention of the
Applicant/Accused would only be pre-trial incarceration without
any fault on his part.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Accused further
submitted that investigation qua the Applicant/Accused is
already complete and he is no more required for the purposes of
investigation. He also stated that the Applicant/Accused will not
flee from justice being a permanent resident within the
jurisdiction of this court and is ready to abide by all the terms
and conditions and even cooperate in investigation, whenever so
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
directed. He prayed that the Applicant/ Accused be released on
bail.
Submissions of the State:
13. Ld. PP for the State argued that one pen-drive
containing voice recording of conversations between the accused
and the complainant has been provided in the said case, which
corroborates the demand for bribe. He further argued that the
Applicant/Accused was caught red handed and bribe amount of
Rs.50,000/- was recovered from him on the same day.
14. Ld. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the
statement of the Panch witness under Section 180 BNSS was
also recorded, wherein he confirmed that the Applicant/Accused
accepted the bribe amount from the complainant and that the
same was recovered; that the documents sought from the office
of Sub-Registrar-I, under Section 94 BNSS are still awaited; that
the voice sample, original device, transcript are yet to be
obtained for forensic analysis; that investigation with respect to
another suspect Reader Singla is still going on; that there is a
likelihood that the Applicant/Accused may abscond, if released
on bail and that there is a strong possibility that he may hamper
the investigation or influence the witnesses, if granted bail. He
prayed that the bail be denied.
Analysis and Decision:-
15. As per the case of the prosecution, the
Applicant/Accused was caught red-handed indulging in corrupt
activity. He allegedly demanded bribe money on behalf of the
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
Reader to the Sub-Registrar for handing over the original deed
documents without the MCD BOOKED stamp. Whether there is
any contradiction in the version of the complainant is a matter of
trial and cannot be decided at this stage. Further, bail cannot be
sought or granted merely on the ground that the Applicant/
Accused is a practicing advocate. In fact, a lawyer, who is an
officer of the court, when takes undue advantage to influence a
public servant by corrupt or illegal means, leaves a profound and
far reaching impact on the society. There is erosion of public
trust and it undermines justice and weakens the social fabric.
16. It was held in the case of State of Maharashtra
through CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Mumbai v Balakrishna
Dattatrya Kumbhar (2012) 12 SCC 384, by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India that:
“Corruption is not only a punishable offence but
also undermines human rights, indirectly violating
them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights
violation in itself, as it leads to systematic
economic crimes”.
17. In the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v Central Bureau of
Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
under:
“Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country
has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar
crimes, which has affected the fibre of the
country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly,
economic offences have serious repercussions on
the development of the country as a whole.”
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stressed that interest of
society must be borne in mind while deciding whether to grant bail.
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
In the case of Masroor Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (6)
SCALE 358, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :
“There is no denying the fact that the liberty
of an individual is precious and is to be
zealously protected by the Courts.
Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be
absolute in every situation. The valuable
right of liberty of an individual and the
interest of the society in general has to be
balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an
offence would depend upon the exigencies of
the case. It is possible that in a given
situation, the collective interest of the
community may outweigh the right of
personal liberty of the individual concerned”.
19. This court is of the view that since the Applicant/
Accused is a part of the system, there are chances that he may
use his influence to tamper the evidence and influence the
witnesses. Also, the Applicant/Accused was arrested on
22.10.2025 and the investigation is still in its nascent stage. As
per the State, the voice samples are yet to be obtained and
investigation qua other suspect persons is yet to be concluded.
Since, the investigation is still pending, and there are chances
that the Applicant/Accused may influence the witnesses and
tamper with the evidence and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the case that he was caught red-handed, the
application for regular bail filed on behalf of Applicant/Accused
Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi is dismissed.
The application is accordingly disposed off.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for
Applicant/Accused, as prayed.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
RADC, New Delhi/27.10.2025
FIR No. 40/2025 State vs. Keshav Joshi @ Keshab Dutt Joshi Page 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --