Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001128-2026
Bail Matter No. 223/2026
State Vs. (i) Yogesh S/o Sh. Surat Singh
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-001107-2026
Bail Matter No. 224/2026
State Vs. (ii) Harendra Bansal S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh;
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-001228-2026
Bail Matter No. 231/2026
State Vs. (iii) Viplove Khari S/o Sh. Anil Khari
AND
CNR No.: DLCT11-001237-2026
Bail Matter No. 236/2026
State Vs. (iv) Sunil Kumar s/o Sh. Jagdev
FIR No. 4/2026
PS: ACB
U/s 7,7A PC Act
r/w S.308(5)/61(2) BNS, 2023
ORDER
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose off all these four
separate bail applications moved on behalf of above named
accused persons, as they arise out of the same FIR.
2. Separate replies of all the aforesaid bail applications have
been filed.
3. Arguments on all these four bail applications have already
been heard on behalf of both the sides. I have duly
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 1 of 32
-- 1 of 32 --
considered the 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.
Arguments advanced on behalf of applicant/accused
Yogesh
4. While referring to the case of the prosecution, Ld. Counsel
of applicant/accused Yogesh has, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
4.1 The applicant/accused had already joined the
investigation on 06 occasions in pursuant to notices
u/s 179 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile S. 160 Cr.PC),
demonstrating his complete co-operation, and he had
also joined the investigation, in pursuance to another
notice dated 15.07.2026, on 16.07.2026, on which
date, he was arrested in this case and was got falsely
implicated in this case;
4.2 The statements of prosecution witnesses, who had
attributed any role to the applicant/accused, had
already been recorded u/s 180 of BNSS, 2023
(erstwhile S. 161 Cr.PC), while the
applicant/accused was at liberty and thus, there is no
likelihood that the applicant/accused could influence
or intimidate those witnesses, as their statements had
already been recorded before the arrest of the
applicant/accused. Ld. Counsel contended that for
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 2 of 32
-- 2 of 32 --
similar reasons, there was no necessity to effect the
arrest of applicant/accused in this case;
4.3 The act of Investigating Agency in arresting the
applicant/accused, cannot be construed in aid of
investigation; but was rather used as a tool to cause
harassment to him, which fact stands substantiated
from record showing that the applicant/accused was
served with four (4) notices u/s 179 BNSS (erstwhile
S. 160 Cr.PC) to join the investigation on different
dates of 06.05.2026, 09.05.2026, 05.06.2026 and
10.06.2026, which he actually did on all the said
four occasions; and duly co-operated with the
Investigating Agency. However, 5th notice, which
was issued without mentioning any provision
therein, was issued to the applicant/accused for
joining the investigation on 16.07.2026, on which
date, he was arbitrarily arrested by IO in this case;
4.4 While referring to the Grounds of Arrest, copy of
which is filed as Annexure-A2 with the bail petition,
Ld. Counsel argued that the grounds for effecting
arrest of applicant/accused, as mentioned therein, are
quite vague and general in nature; and are not
supported by any material at all;
4.5 The investigation agency never sought police
custody remand of applicant/accused for the purpose
of investigation, which demonstrates that his
custodial interrogation was not considered
necessary;
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 3 of 32
-- 3 of 32 --
4.6 The applicant/accused is continuously in judicial
custody since 17-07-2026 and his continued custody
would serve no investigative purpose;
4.7 The investigation qua applicant/accused, has
substantially been completed; and he is no more
required for the purpose of his custodial
interrogation in any manner, and thus, he may be
enlarged on bail;
4.8 The prosecution case rests solely on some bald
assertions that the complainant had paid ₹ 1.5 Lacs
to the applicant/accused as illegal gratification,
however, admittedly no bribe amount was ever
recovered from his possession, or at his instance;
and thus, in absence of any recovery or
corroborative financial evidence, the allegation of
payment of bribe remains wholly unsubstantiated;
4.9 The applicant/accused was posted in Barrack no.5
on the relevant date and he was neither posted, nor
was assigned any duty in Barrack nos.3; or the OPD
and during the preceding one and half years, the
applicant’s duties were confined to Barrack Nos. 4,
5, and 6. It is also submitted that the
applicant/accused was on leave on the alleged date
of commission of offences;
4.10 The investigation is likely to take considerable time
as the Investigating Agency has not been able to file
the charge-sheet even against the first set of accused
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 4 of 32
-- 4 of 32 --
persons, who were previously arrested in this case;
and as per the reply filed by IO, the investigation is
still going on in this case and as such, there is no
likelihood of investigation being completed in near
future; and therefore, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the applicant/accused behind the
jail;
4.11 The material witnesses of prosecution are primarily
official witnesses; and thus, there is no possibility of
applicant/ accused either tampering with the
evidence, or influencing any of the prosecution
witnesses in any manner. Besides, it is also
submitted that the entire evidence is either
documentary or electronic in nature;
4.12 The applicant/accused is a government servant with
an unblemished service record, and has deep roots
into the society and therefore, there is no possibility
of him absconding or he being a flight risk. Further,
it was submitted that the applicant/accused is
permanent resident of Delhi and he undertakes to
abide by all the terms and conditions, as may be
imposed upon him by the Court, if so granted bail;
and
4.13 Apart from above, it is also submitted that
co-accused persons namely Pankaj Kumar, Ravi
Kumar, Dinesh Dabas and Jogendra, who are
government servants; and Ashish Rana
(private person), have already been granted regular
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 5 of 32
-- 5 of 32 --
bail, vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 07.04.2026,
passed by this Court, copies whereof have also been
annexed with the bail application and therefore, the
applicant/accused also deserves to be released on
bail on the ground of parity.
5. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel also
relied upon the following decisions:
5.1 ‘Pawan Yadav v. CBI Through Director’,bearing
Bail Application No.144/2012, decided on
16.02.2012 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court;
5.2 ‘Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. Chandigarh’, bearing
SLP (Crl.) 9949 of 2023, decided on 01.03.2024 by
Ho’ble Apex Court;
5.3 ‘Zahur Haider Zaidi v. CBI’, reported as (2019) 20
SCC 404
5.4 ‘Sunder Singh Bhati v. State’ reported as 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 134
5.5 ‘Yudhveer Singh Yadav v. CBI’ reported as 2024
SCC Online Del 7070;
5.6 ‘Dhiman Chakman v. State of Odisha (vig)’ bearing
Bail Application no. 6318/2025;
5.7 ‘Mohd. Junaid Qureshi v. State’, reported as 2023
SCC OnLine Del 138
5.8 ‘Sabita Paul v. State of W.B.’ reported as 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 374
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 6 of 32
-- 6 of 32 --
5.9 ‘Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana’ bearing SLP
(Crl.) 232 of 2024;
5.10 ‘Santosh v. State of Maharashtra’, reported as
(2017) 9 SCC 714
5.11 ‘Kundan Kumar @ Gore v. CBI’, bearing
Application no. 1497/2024;
5.12 ‘Phundreimayum Yas Khan v. State (GNCT of
Delhi)’, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Del 135;
5.13 ‘Sudapta Adhikary v. West of Bengal’, CRR 2464 of
2022’
5.14 ‘Prateek Kanakia v. DoE’, Criminal Writ Petition
(ST) No. 1823 of 2026
5.15 ‘Deepak Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement’, W.P.
No.15130 of 2026
5.16 ‘Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors.’, reported as
(1994) 4 SCC 260
5.17 ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’, bearing M.A. no.
2035 of 2022.
6. Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused
may be released on bail on such terms and conditions, as
may be deemed fit by the Court.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
7. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Yogesh, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 7 of 32
-- 7 of 32 --
7.1 The applicant/accused, who was posted as Head
Warder in Rohini Jail, is named in the FIR;
7.2 During further investigation, various witnesses,
including the complainant, have stated that they had
given cash amounts, to the applicant/accused on
different occasions, as also that there are other
linking evidences, including the CDRs, which duly
corroborate the version of such witnesses.
Thus, the applicant/accused has played an important
role in the commission of offences alleged in this
case;
7.3 The applicant/accused has also been found part of
the nexus exposed in this case;
7.4 UTPs connected with the case, are still to be
examined and their interrogation may add to more
incriminating evidence against the
applicant/accused; and the details of concerned
UTPs have been received recently from Jail
Authorities; and thus, this aspect is pending
investigation;
7.5 Analysis of the CDRs also establish communication
between the applicant/accused with co-accused
Viplove Khari; and
7.6 The investigation is at vital stage, and more evidence
is surfacing day by day. One property issue is also
being examined as a piece of evidence and number
of witnesses and alleged persons are still to be
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 8 of 32
-- 8 of 32 --
examined/interrogated and the applicant/accused
will certainly hamper investigation on all these
aspects, if so released on bail.
8. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Harendra Bansal
9. While referring to the allegations appearing in the FIR; and
while adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of
aforesaid applicant/co-accused, Ld. Counsel of
applicant/accused Harendra Bansal, has, inter alia,
advanced the following arguments:
9.1 The applicant/accused was arrested on 16.07.2026
and was sent to judicial custody on 17.07.2026 and
since then, he is languishing in jail;
9.2 The only allegation against the applicant/accused is
that he had facilitated/helped the jail officials in
receiving certain amount, which was given by the
near and dear ones of UTP’s of Rohini Jail, by
transferring the money into the bank account of
applicant/accused, whose number was provided by
them;
9.3 The applicant/accused is neither named in the FIR,
nor any amount has been transferred by
applicant/accused to any of the jail officials, so as to
show his complicity in the commission of alleged
offences;
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 9 of 32
-- 9 of 32 --
9.4 The applicant/accused is an advocate by
profession and during the course of his several
visits at Rohini Jail (to meet his brother in law/
Jija ji), the applicant/accused came into contact
with several other family members of UTP's, who
were also confined in Rohini Jail and during those
visits, the applicant/accused had given legal
assistance to the family members of those UTP's,
against legal fee; and the amount reflected in the
bank account of applicant/accused is nothing
except legal fee received by him from family
members of those UTP's, which the prosecution
alleges to be an illegal transaction; and it seems
that in order to complete the chain of events, the
applicant/accused has been got falsely implicated
in this case on the basis of fabricated disclosure
statements of some of the co-accused persons,
whose identity is not even known to the
applicant/accused; and
9.5 The applicant/accused has always co-operated and
joined the investigation several times; and as
such, there is no apprehension of him either
absconding; or tampering with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.
10. Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused
may be released on bail on such terms and conditions,
as may be deemed fit by the Court.
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 10 of 32
-- 10 of 32 --
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
11. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Harendra Bansal, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
11.1 The applicant/accused has played an important role
in the commission of offences alleged in this case.
During investigation, name of the applicant/accused
Harendra Bansal surfaced upon screening of Bank
Accounts, which revealed that he had been receiving
money in his personal bank accounts as well as in
the bank accounts of his close family members/
relatives/ acquaintances;
11.2 It is also revealed that the applicant/accused is
brother-in-law of one hardened criminal, namely
Yogesh Bhati, who is still undergoing imprisonment;
and further investigation has established that the
applicant/accused had received money, routed by
Yogesh Bhati, wherein the original source was
family members of other inmates i.e. who had been
victimized; and such modus operandi adopted by the
applicant/accused and others for illegal obtainment,
indicts him as part of the nexus, which has been
exposed in this case;
11.3 Money trail further establishes that it was destined
for co-accused persons namely AS Sunil, Head
Warder Yogesh, and Viplove Khari also played an
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 11 of 32
-- 11 of 32 --
important role, as part of the chain, in delivering
cash amounts to the Jail Officials;
11.4 Screening of CDRs and relevant transcriptions do
also indicate active role of the applicant/accused;
11.5 Detailed CDRs analysis also indicated that the
applicant/accused was making calls, which were
operational illegally, inside the Rohini Jail and
thus, he was very much part and parcel of the
syndicate, exposed during investigation of the
instant case;
11.6 UTPs connected with the role of
applicant/accused, are still to be examined and
their interrogation may add to more incriminating
evidence against the applicant/accused, which
may pave way for his further custodial
interrogation;
11.7 The details of concerned UTPs have been
received recently from Jail Authorities, thus, this
aspect is pending investigation; and
11.8 The investigation is at vital stage, and more
evidence is surfacing day by day and number of
witnesses and alleged persons are still to be
examined/ interrogated and the applicant/accused
will certainly hamper investigation on these
aspects, if so released on bail.
12. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 12 of 32
-- 12 of 32 --
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Viplove Khari
13. While referring to the case of the prosecution, and while
adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of aforesaid
applicants/co-accused persons, Ld. Counsel of
applicant/accused Viplove Khari has, inter alia, advanced
the following arguments:
13.1 The applicant/accused was arrested on 16.07.2026
and on 17.07.2026, he was sent to Judicial Custody
(J.C) by the order of this Court and since then, he is
continuously in judicial custody;
13.2 As per the case of prosecution, it is alleged against
the applicant/accused that when he was lodged in
jail, he came into contact with Gangster UTP -
Yogesh Bhati; and after being released from jail, at
the instance of said UTP, the applicant/accused had
collected bribe money given by family members of
other inmates lodged in jail; and then, he withdrew
this money in cash through bank accounts of
acquaintances or transferred it to the bank accounts
of known of applicant/accused and out of this cash,
the applicant/accused used to retain his share and
deliver money to the jail officials through Sandeep
(relative of UTP Yogesh Bhati) and co-accused
namely Harendra Bansal;
13.3 The applicant/accused has been made scapegoat and
framed in the present case, despite the fact that he
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 13 of 32
-- 13 of 32 --
did not have any authority, discretion or power to
extend any official favour to the UTP's; and
13.4 The applicant/accused is not maintaining any bank
account since last 3 years; and there is no direct
evidence to establish any nexus of the
applicant/accused with the alleged demand or
acceptance of illegal gratification.
14. Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused
may be released on bail on such terms and conditions, as
may be deemed fit by the Court.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
15. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Viplove Khari, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
15.1 The applicant/accused has played an important role
in the commission of offences alleged in this case.
During investigation, name of the applicant/accused
Viplove Khari surfaced upon screening of Bank
Accounts, which revealed that he had been receiving
money in the bank accounts of his acquaintances on
different occasions, who turned up witnesses and
explained the role of applicant/accused on the issue
of alleged transactions appearing in their accounts;
15.2 It is also revealed that during his incarceration in
Tihar Jail, the applicant/accused had come into
contact with one hardened criminal, namely Yogesh
Bhati, and after his release from jail in March, 2023,
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 14 of 32
-- 14 of 32 --
the applicant/accused had started receiving money,
routed by Yogesh Bhati and co-accused person
namely Harendra Bansal (brother-in-law of Yogesh
Bhati), in the bank accounts of his known persons,
including his wife; and the money was having its
origination from the victim families i.e. whose
family members had been harassed inside the Jail
and were being pressurized to make payments in this
way i.e. modus operandi exposed in the instant case.
Further, cash withdrawals were noticed thereafter
from the bank accounts of prosecution witnesses and
after taking cash amounts from those witnesses, the
applicant/accused was passing it on to Jail officials
by visiting Rohini Jail premises time and again.
Screening of CDRs i.e. communication on some
relevant dates, also added to the evidence on this
aspect; and large number of transactions, on multiple
occasions, as noticed during investigation, are also
indicative of his deep involvement in the alleged
nexus;
15.3 Further, detailed CDR analysis also indicated that
the applicant/accused was using SIM of his father
for making calls over mobile phones, which were
operational illegally inside the Rohini Jail and thus,
he was very much part and parcel of the syndicate,
exposed during the investigation of the instant case;
15.4 UTPs connected with the role of applicant/accused,
are still to be examined and their interrogation may
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 15 of 32
-- 15 of 32 --
add to more incriminating evidence against the
applicant/accused, which may pave way for his
further custodial interrogation;
15.5 The applicant/accused is also found to be involved
in three other criminal cases i.e. (i) FIR No.202/2014
dated 24.03.2014 u/s 354D IPC, PS Keshav Puram,
Delhi; (ii) FIR No. 779/2021 dated 11.12.2021 u/s
336 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, PS Keshav
Puram, Delhi; and (iii) FIR No. 853/2023 dated
17.11.2023 u/s 307/147/148/149 IPC Act, PS
Keshav Puram, Delhi; and
15.6 The investigation is at vital stage, and more evidence
is surfacing day by day and number of witnesses and
alleged persons are still to be examined/ interrogated
and the applicant/accused will certainly hamper the
investigation on these aspects, if so released on bail.
16. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Sunil Kumar
17. While referring to the case of the prosecution; and while
adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of other
applicants/co-accused persons, Ld. Counsel of applicant/
accused Sunil Kumar has, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
17.1 On being served with the notices,
the applicant/accused had duly joined the
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 16 of 32
-- 16 of 32 --
investigation of this case, before IO on 25.04.2026,
30.04.2026, 06.05.2026, 02.06.2026 and 01.07.2026;
and also on 16.07.2026, on which date, he was
arrested in this case, despite the fact that he had fully
co-operated with the investigation agency;
17.2 The applicant/accused has been arrested merely on
the basis of disclosure statement; or on the basis of
statements of some witnesses, the veracity of which
can be tested only during trial;
17.3 The applicant/accused is neither named in the FIR,
nor there is any allegation appearing in the FIR
against him regarding demand and acceptance of
bribe money;
17.4 The applicant/accused neither demanded, nor
accepted any bribe money from the complainant or
from any other person at any point of time; and he
has nothing to do with the commission of alleged
offences. Moreover, no bribe money was recovered
either from his possession, or at his instance;
17.5 The co-accused persons, who were allegedly caught
red handed, have already been released on bail, and
thus, the applicant/accused also deserves to be
released on bail on the ground of parity;
17.6 The applicant/accused is continuously in judicial
custody for the last more than 30 days; and the
material investigation has already been completed
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 17 of 32
-- 17 of 32 --
by ACB department; and presumption of innocence
is in favour of the applicant/accused;
17.7 Further, the present case does not fall within the
category of S. 480(1) (i) or S.480 (1)(ii) of BNSS,
2023, and rather, same falls under the Category A,
as specified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) and as such, the
applicant/accused may be released on bail;
17.8 While relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of ‘Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI’,
Criminal Appeal no.3614/2024, Ld. Counsel further
submitted that the bail is rule and jail is exception
and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless
held guilty; and
17.9 There is no allegation against the applicant/accused
of having tried to temper with the prosecution
evidence, or to threaten the prosecution witnesses
and the applicant/accused undertakes not to tamper
with prosecution evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
18. Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused
Sunil Kumar may be released on bail on any terms and
conditions as deemed fit by the Court.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
19. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Sunil Kumar, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 18 of 32
-- 18 of 32 --
19.1 The applicant/accused, who was posted as Assistant
Superintendent in Rohini Jail, has been named in
FIR;
19.2 The applicant/accused has played an important role
in the commission of offences alleged in this case. In
this regard, Ld. PP submitted that there are
statements of several witnesses, who have
categorically stated that they had given cash
amounts/bribe money, to the applicant/accused on
different occasions, apart from other linking
evidences, including CDRs, which show his
complicity in the commission of offences;
19.3 The applicant/accused had also been receiving bribe
money in the bank accounts of his private
employees, who had been employed by him for
running Mother Dairy Booth, allotted to him, and
concerned bank account holders have also turned up
as PWs, and there are connected PWs, who had
passed on money, who have also narrated on this
aspect. In the manner, the applicant/accused kept on
receiving large amounts for a long time, which
indicates that the applicant/accused is an active part
of the nexus exposed in the instant case; and the
origin of alleged amounts has been found connected
with the victims i.e. family members of the Inmates;
19.4 UTPs connected with the case are still to be
examined and their interrogation may add to more
incriminating evidence against the applicant/accused
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 19 of 32
-- 19 of 32 --
and the details of concerned UTPs have been
received recently from the Jail Authorities and thus,
this aspect is still pending investigation; and
19.5 The investigation is at vital stage, and more evidence
is surfacing day by day. Further, number of
witnesses and alleged persons are still to be
examined/interrogated and the applicant/accused
will certainly hamper the investigation on these
aspects, if so released on bail.
20. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Analysis & Conclusion
21. 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 inter-alia 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 when such bribe money was allegedly
paid from time to time during the said period, he alleged
that on 04.02.2026, he had received a call from his
father/UTP through one mobile number from inside the
Rohini Jail that jail officials would help him in release on
parole for 15 days in case they would pay them the bribe
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 20 of 32
-- 20 of 32 --
money of ₹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
same number of said Manish. He further alleged that he
had transferred various amounts through PayTM on
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
Rohini Jail, who asked him about the reason for not paying
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
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 21 of 32
-- 21 of 32 --
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.
22. Accordingly, a trap was laid down by raiding team of
PS ACB, during which, the complainant 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
co-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 persons namely
Dinesh Dabas and Pankaj Kumar, who had come on one
white colour scooty, on which, co-accused Pankaj Kumar
was sitting as pillion rider and said GC notes were
recovered from the possession of said co-accused Dinesh
Dabas. Thereafter, co-accused Ravi Kumar was asked to
join investigation, through Notice under S. 35(3) of BNSS
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 22 of 32
-- 22 of 32 --
dated 14.02.2026 for 16.02.2026, on which date, he was
also arrested in this case.
23. It may be noted that during the course of investigation,
other co-accused persons namely Manish and Joginder
were also arrested on 23.02.2026 and 07.03.2026
respectively.
24. It may also be noted here that accused persons namely
Ashish Rana, Pankaj and Ravi were granted bail, vide
common order dated 02.04.2026, whereas, co-accused
persons namely Dinesh Dabas and Joginder were admitted
to bail, vide common order dated 07.04.2026, and co-
accused namely Manish was admitted to bail, vide order
13.04.2026, passed by this Court.
25. Now adverting back to the bail petitions under
consideration. As already noted above, the
applicants/accused persons namely Yogesh and Sunil
Kumar are public servants, who were posted as Head
Warder and Assistant Superintendent respectively in
Rohini/Tihar Jails, whereas, other two applicants/accused
persons namely Harendra Bansal and Viplove Khari are
private persons, who were allegedly part of crime
syndicate and had facilitated in accepting illegal
gratification in various bank accounts and providing such
illegal gratification in cash to the alleged jail officials from
time to time.
26. In so far as applicant/accused Yogesh is concerned, it is
alleged that he had received ₹1.5 Lacs in cash from the
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 23 of 32
-- 23 of 32 --
complainant namely Kunal from time to time on different
dates; apart from receiving bribe money in cash from or on
behalf of other UTPs lodged inside Rohini Jail, from time
to time. In this regard, IO drew attention of the Court to the
statements of as many as 15 witnesses examined by him
during investigation, who have stated in their respective
statements that various payments were either made as
bribes to the applicant/accused Yogesh, or that their bank
accounts were used, at the instance of said accused, for
receiving the bribe money. Further, there are statements of
witnesses namely Sh. Sunil Bansal and Sh. Manoj Kumar,
which would clearly show that vehicle bearing registration
no. HR18D4286, though existed in the name of PW Sh.
Manoj Kumar, however, was being used by
applicant/accused Yogesh, and whose insurance amount
was being paid by PW Sh. Sunil Bansal from his bank
account. This vehicle has been referred to in statements of
several prosecution witnesses examined during
investigation, to be the vehicle, which was used by the
applicant/accused at the time of accepting the illegal
gratification from time to time.
27. Not only this, relevant documents in the form of CDRs and
Cell ID Location Charts, as collected during investigation,
would also show that Cell ID Location of mobile phone
used by applicant/accused Yogesh and the location of one
of those witnesses who allegedly paid illegal gratification
to him, are shown to be at the same place where such bribe
money was allegedly accepted by said applicant/accused.
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 24 of 32
-- 24 of 32 --
Moreover, there are screenshots of Whatsapp messages
exchanged between applicant/accused Yogesh and PW
namely Virender Kumar, which would also corroborate the
allegation regarding receipt of bribe money by him from
said witness. Furthermore, CDRs collected during
investigation, has also revealed that applicant/accused
Yogesh was in constant touch with co-accused/co-
applicant namely Viplove Khari; and Cell ID Location of
their respectively mobile numbers, would also reveal that
their location was near Rohini Jail or at around 9:00 p.m.
on 06.05.2025.
28. As regards applicant/accused Sunil Kumar, it may be noted
that there are many witnesses, including complainant
namely Kunal, which are more than 20 in number, who
have stated in their respective statements that they had paid
illegal gratification to said accused from time to time on
different dates, as mentioned in their statements. Not only
this, it is also alleged that applicant/accused Sunil Kumar
is having two bank accounts, maintained with Bank of
India and State Bank of India; and he is also running
Mother Dairy Booth allotted to him, he being ex-service
man, and he had allegedly used his personal bank account
as also bank accounts of his private employees, working in
said Mother Dairy Booth, for receiving the bribe money
from relatives/family members of UTPs/ jail inmates,
lodged inside the jail.
29. During the course of arguments, IO had informed the
Court that after receipt of bribe money in the bank
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 25 of 32
-- 25 of 32 --
accounts of private employees of his Mother Dairy Booth,
the applicant/accused Sunil Kumar used to get those
amounts transferred either in his personal bank account or
in bank account of his Mother Dairy Booth, which fact got
substantiated/corroborated from the statements of
witnesses, including employees of Mother Dairy Booth
alleged being run by the applicant/accused, as recorded
during investigation. IO also brought to the notice of the
Court that as per investigation carried out till date, the said
applicant/accused had received huge amounts from PW
Ravinder from 18.10.2021 to 29.03.2025; and also
received huge amount from 26.05.2023 to 11.11.2025 from
another PW namely Sh. Ankush; and also received a sum
of ₹20,000/- on 14.05.2025 from PW Sh. Ankit in the bank
account of Mother Dairy Booth. In this manner, the
applicant/accused allegedly received bribe money to the
tune of ₹15,52,000/- in various bank accounts from time to
time.
30. IO had also informed the Court that investigation has
revealed that there are recorded conversation between
applicant/accused Sunil Kumar, on the one hand and PWs
namely Ravinder, Ankush and another alleged person
namely Sandeep, who had previously joined the
investigation but is no more joining investigation after
seizure of his mobile phone containing SIM no.
9911942474 on 12.05.2026; on the other hand, showing
that the applicant/accused Sunil Kumar was indulging in
corruption and was very much part of the crime syndicate.
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 26 of 32
-- 26 of 32 --
31. Investigation carried out so far, has also revealed that other
two applicants/accused persons namely Harendra Bansal
and Viplove Khari were equally part of the crime syndicate
and had allegedly facilitated the alleged jail officials, who
were indulging in pressurizing UTPs/ their family
members/ relatives by asking them to pay bribe money
from time to time, by facilitating receipt of such bribe
money in various bank accounts either belonging to them
or to their acquaintances/relatives/ known persons and
thereafter, to withdraw such bribe money in cash and to
hand over the same to those jail officials, including the
applicants/accused persons namely Yogesh and Sunil
Kumar. In this regard, IO also informed the Court that the
applicant/accused Harendra Bansal is brother-in-law of one
gangster namely Yogesh Bhati, who is presently lodged
inside Jail and applicant/accused Harendra Bansal was
regularly in contact with said Yogesh Bhati, through
mobile phones being operated illegally inside the jail. IO
also pointed out that bank accounts of 7 persons were used
by applicant/accused Harendra Bansal for the said purpose.
Further, the said applicant/accused was also maintaining
5 bank accounts with different banks and had used one of
those bank accounts maintained with Union Bank, for
transferring bribe money therein; and he could not furnish
any explanation during his interrogation conducted during
investigation. IO also pointed out to the Court during the
course of arguments that huge amounts got transferred in
the bank accounts of said applicant/accused and his known
persons between 28.02.2025 to 10.12.2025, which were
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 27 of 32
-- 27 of 32 --
subsequently withdrawn from 10.01.2025 to 07.01.2026
and were allegedly handed over to the alleged jail officials,
including applicants/co-accused persons namely Yogesh
and Sunil Kumar. Apart from that, it was also informed to
the Court that mobile phone no.9911942474 of alleged
Sandeep seized on 12.05.2026, is also found containing
audio recordings showing involvement of the
applicant/accused Harendra Bansal, in the commission of
offences involved in this case. Moreover, the said
applicant/accused is also shown to be previously found
involved in two other criminal cases i.e. FIR no.124 /2023,
PS: Jarcha, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., u/s 307 IPC;
and robbery case vide FIR no. 11/2018, PS Dabri, Distt.
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., which fact is also not denied on
behalf of applicant/accused.
32. Likewise, applicant/accused Viplove Khari is also found
previously involved in 3 other criminal cases i.e. (i) FIR
No.202/2014 (supra), (ii) FIR No. 779/2021 (supra), and
(iii) FIR No. 853/2023 (supra). IO informed the Court that
the applicant/accused came into contact with gangster
Yogesh Bhati while he was lodged inside Tihar jail till
04.03.2023. Not only this, the said applicant/accused was
in regular contact with said gangster through mobile phone
being illegally operated inside the jail. Investigation
carried out so far, has revealed that bank accounts of 5
persons/witnesses, who were either tenants, or friends, or
neighbourers of the applicant/accused, were used for
accepting the bribe money from the family members/
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 28 of 32
-- 28 of 32 --
relatives of UTPs, on different dates. Not only this, the
said applicant/accused also used bank account of his wife
and three other bank accounts of his known persons for
receiving bribe money in such bank accounts; and after
withdrawal thereof in cash, he used to hand over such
bribe money in cash to co-applicant/accused Yogesh from
time to time. According to the IO, the said
applicant/accused had received huge amount of money
while using this modus operandi, during the period from
24.04.2025 to 25.11.2025, and later on, he used to
withdraw money from those bank accounts, and hand over
the same to co-accused Yogesh. This is apart from the fact
that mobile location of both the co-applicants/accused
persons namely Yogesh and Viplove Khari are shown to
be near Rohini Jail on 06.05.2025.
33. Though, Ld. Counsels of applicants/accused persons
namely Harendra Bansal and Viplove Khari contended that
they are already granted bail in all the said cases and same
are still pending trial, however, factum of previous
involvements of said two accused persons in aforesaid
other criminal cases, would show their propensity to
commit crime in future and their complicity in the
commission of offences involved in the present case,
would prima facie substantiate it.
34. Moreover, the investigation qua all these
applicants/accused persons is shown to be at crucial stage.
According to the IO, the chargesheet could not be filed till
date due to non receipt of FSL results in view of number of
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 29 of 32
-- 29 of 32 --
digital and electronic evidences seized during
investigation.
35. Apart from above, in view of detailed discussion made
hereinabove, it is prima facie evident that the present case
is not those of an ordinary trap case involving single
transaction of bribe money by some particular government
servant(s). Rather, it involves number of jail
officials/public servants and private persons, who had
acted in the form of cartel, in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy hatched amongst them, to force UTPs/ family
members / relatives to pay illegal gratification in the form
of huge amounts to them from time to time; and such bribe
money were being received through various bank accounts
which were later on being withdrawn and were being
handed over to said jail officials allegedly involved in the
commission of offences of the present case.
36. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the cases cited on behalf of applicants/accused
persons namely Yogesh and Sunil Kumar. However, it is
trite law that there cannot be any straight-jacket formula
while deciding the bail applications and each bail
application needs to be decided on the basis of facts and
circumstances of each case. All the cases as relied upon by
Ld. Counsel of the applicants/accused persons namely
Yogesh and Sunil Kumar, are thus distinguishable on the
facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reasons
already noted hereinbefore.
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 30 of 32
-- 30 of 32 --
37. These four applicants/accused persons cannot claim parity
vis-a-vis co-accused persons, who have already been granted
bail in this case, as the role alleged played by them, is quite
different from the role allegedly attributed to said other co-
accused persons. Co-accused namely Ashish Rana, who has
since been granted bail, was known to UTP Ravi Chhikara
who was lodged in Rohini Jail and as per whose instruction,
co-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, he 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. Likewise, the role ascribed
to co-accused Pankaj Kumar is only to the effect that he was
caught red handed, while he along with 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; and as per the case of prosecution, the alleged bribe
money of ₹50,000/- was recovered from the possession of co-
accused Dinesh Dabas. The role attributed to co-accused Ravi
Kumar is only that one mobile connection number, registered
in his name, was illegally used inside the jail premises for
making several calls to different persons from 31.08.2024
onwards till 03.02.2026. The only role attributed to co-
accused Joginder was that he was using ATM card of co-
accused Manish and had withdrawn certain amounts from
time to time through ATMs installed near Tihar Jail Complex,
as also from ATMs installed at other places; and the role
ascribed to co-accused Manish is that there were some money
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 31 of 32
-- 31 of 32 --
transactions reflected in his bank account, which represented
the money transferred by complainant and relatives/friends of
other UTPs, on the asking of jail officials involved in the
commission of offences alleged in this case. Moreover, co-
accused persons namely Dinesh Dabas and Manish were
granted bail after their incarceration for a period of about 2
months and even otherwise, the roles ascribed to said two co-
accused persons and their gravity, is quite different from the
roles assigned to the applicants/ accused persons herein.
38. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, including the nature of allegations, gravity of the
offences alleged, the role allegedly played by all these four
applicants/accused persons, the stage of investigation, severity
of punishment in the event of conviction and in view of the
discussion made hereinbefore, the Court is of the considered
view that all these four applicants/accused persons are not
entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently,
all these four bail applications are hereby dismissed and stand
disposed off.
39. However, 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.
40. Copy of this order be given Dasti to both the sides.
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge, PC Act (ACB)-01
RACC, New Delhi.
24-08-2026(r)
Bail Matter Nos.: 223/2026, 224/2023, 231/2026 & 236/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 32 of 32
-- 32 of 32 --