Final Order 5

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. DLCT11-001370-2026
Bail Matter No. 256/2026
State Vs. Viplove Khari S/o Sh. Anil Khari
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-001384-2026
Bail Matter No. 260/2026
State Vs. Yogesh S/o Sh. Surat Singh
AND
CNR No. DLCT11-0001414-2026
Bail Matter No. 263/2026
State v. 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
three 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 the aforesaid bail applications have already
been heard on behalf of both the sides. I have
duly considered the rival submissions made on behalf
of both the sides in the light of material available on
record.
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 1 of 25
-- 1 of 25 --
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Viplove Khari:
4. While referring to the case of prosecution, Ld. Counsel of
applicant/accused Viplove Khari has, inter alia, advanced
the following arguments:
4.1 The applicant/accused is quite innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case; he 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;
4.2 The applicant/accused was neither named in the
present FIR, nor there is any direct allegation against
him, of demand and acceptance of bribe money from
UTPs, or even the complainant. Further, there is no
recovery of bribe money either from possession of
the applicant/accused, or at his instance;
4.3 As per the case of prosecution, it is alleged that
when the applicant/accused 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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 2 of 25
-- 2 of 25 --
deliver money to the jail officials through Sandeep
(relative of UTP Yogesh Bhati) and co-accused
namely Harendra Bansal;
4.4 The allegation that the applicant/accused came
into contact with UTP Yogesh Bhati, while he
was lodged in jail, is completely false as he was
never lodged in the same jail facility, at the same
time, or during the same month as was UTP
Yogesh Bhati;
4.5 The applicant/accused has been made scapegoat
and framed in the present case, despite the fact
that he did not have any authority, discretion or
power to extend any official favour to the UTP's;
4.6 The applicant/accused is not maintaining any
bank account for the last 3 years; and there is no
direct evidence to establish any nexus of
applicant/accused with the alleged demand or
acceptance of illegal gratification;
4.7 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;
4.8 The investigation qua applicant/accused, has
substantially been completed; and he is no more
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 3 of 25
-- 3 of 25 --
required for the purpose of his custodial
interrogation in any manner, and thus, he deserves
to be enlarged on bail;
4.9 The Investigating Agency has not been able to file
the charge-sheet even against the first set of
accused 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; and
4.10 The role attributed to the applicant/accused is far
less grave than that of co-accused persons namely
Pankaj Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Ashish Rana, Dinesh
Dabas, Jogesh and Manish, who have already
been granted bail, vide orders dated 02.04.2026,
07.04.2026 and 13.04.2026, and also that
the aforesaid co-accused persons were either
named in the FIR; or were allegedly caught red
handed while accepting the bribe from the
complainant, and therefore, the applicant/accused
deserves to be released on bail on the ground
of parity.
5. 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.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 4 of 25
-- 4 of 25 --
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State:
6. While opposing the bail application of applicant/ accused
Viplove Khari, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
6.1 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;
6.2 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,
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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 5 of 25
-- 5 of 25 --
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;
6.3 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 Rohini Jail; and thus,
he was very much part and parcel of the syndicate,
exposed during the investigation of the instant case;
6.4 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;
6.5 The first bail application of the applicant/accused
was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.08.2026 and
second, bail application was dismissed,
vide detailed common order dated 24.08.2026,
passed by this Court;
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 6 of 25
-- 6 of 25 --
6.6 The investigation is underway, 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.
7. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of applicant/accused
Yogesh:
8. While referring to the case of the prosecution, Ld. Counsel
of applicant/accused Yogesh has, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
8.1 After the dismissal of first bail application of
applicant/accused on 24.08.2026, co-accused Jagbir
has been admitted to bail, vide order dated
10.09.2026, passed by this Court and thus, there is
change of circumstance after the dismissal of the
said bail application of applicant/accused. Even
otherwise, while placing reliance upon the decision
of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of
‘Kanchaman Yonjan v. State (Govt. of Delhi)’, Bail
application no.2845 of 2023’ it has been argued that
every day spent in custody can provide a new cause
of action for a bail application and thus, the present
bail application is duly maintainable in law;
8.2 The applicant/accused is quite innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case;
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 7 of 25
-- 7 of 25 --
8.3 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;
8.4 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
similar reasons, there was no necessity to effect the
arrest of applicant/accused in this case;
8.5 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;
8.6 The applicant/accused is continuously in judicial
custody since 17.07.2026 and his continued custody
would serve no investigative purpose;
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 8 of 25
-- 8 of 25 --
8.7 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;
8.8 The prosecution case rests solely on some bald
assertions that the complainant had paid ₹1,50,000/-
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;
8.9 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; abcd
8.10 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
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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 9 of 25
-- 9 of 25 --
likelihood of investigation being completed in near
future; and therefore, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the applicant/accused behind the
jail;
8.11 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;
8.12 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 has been 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
8.13 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, vide orders dated 02.04.2026 and 07.04.2026,
passed by this Court, copies whereof have also been
annexed with the bail application; as also recently
co-accused Jagbir has also been granted bail,
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 10 of 25
-- 10 of 25 --
vide order dated 10.09.2026, passed by this
Court and therefore, the applicant/accused also
deserves to be released on bail on the ground
of parity.
9. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsel also
relied upon the following decisions:
9.1 ‘Pawan Yadav v. CBI Through Director’,bearing
Bail Application No.144/2012, decided on
16.02.2012 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court;
9.2 ‘Yudhveer Singh Yadav v. CBI’ reported as 2024
SCC Online Del 7070;
9.3 ‘Kundan Kumar @ Gore v. CBI’, bearing
Application no. 1497/2024;
9.4 ‘Sudapta Adhikary v. West of Bengal’, CRR 2464 of
2022’
9.5 ‘Prateek Kanakia v. DoE’, Criminal Writ Petition
(ST) No. 1823 of 2026
9.6 ‘Deepak Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement’, W.P.
No.15130 of 2026
9.7 ‘Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors.’, reported as
(1994) 4 SCC 260
9.8 ‘Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI’, bearing M.A. no.
2035 of 2022.
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.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 11 of 25
-- 11 of 25 --
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State:
11. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Yogesh, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
11.1 The applicant/accused, who was posted as Head
Warder in Rohini Jail, is named in the FIR;
11.2 During 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 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;
11.3 The applicant/accused has also been found part of
the nexus exposed in this case. The origins of the
alleged amounts received by applicant/accused, has
been found connected with the victims i.e. family
members of inmates;
11.4 Analysis of the CDRs also establish communication
between the applicant/accused with
co-applicant/accused Viplove Khari; and
11.5 The investigation is underway, and number of
witnesses and alleged persons are still to be
examined/ interrogated and the applicant/accused
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 12 of 25
-- 12 of 25 --
will certainly hamper the investigation on these
aspects, if so released on bail.
12. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of
applicant/accused Sunil Kumar:
13. While referring to the case of the prosecution, Ld. Counsel
of applicant/ accused Sunil Kumar has, inter alia,
advanced the following arguments:
13.1 The applicant/accused is quite innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case; and he has clean
antecedents;
13.2 Despite having joined the investigation and fully
co-operated with the investigating agency on several
occasions, including on 16.07.2026, the
applicant/accused has been falsely arrested in this
case merely on the basis of disclosure statement, or
statement of some witnesses, the veracity of which
can be tested only during trial;
13.3 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;
13.4 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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 13 of 25
-- 13 of 25 --
offences. Moreover, no bribe money was recovered
either from his possession, or at his instance;
13.5 While drawing attention of the Court towards
detailed common order dated 24.08.2026, passed by
this Court, it is submitted that the first bail
application of the applicant/accused was dismissed
while observing that an amount of ₹15,52,000/- was
transferred in the bank account of the mother dairy
and presuming that the said amount to be illegal
gratification. In this regard, it is submitted that
whether the alleged amount is proceeds of crime or
proceeds of business, is to be seen during trial after
appreciation of evidence;
13.6 The applicant/accused is continuously in judicial
custody for the last more than 60 days;
13.7 The material investigation has already been
completed by ACB department and only opinion of
CFSL expert, grant of sanction u/s 19 of PC Act,
which are to be done by the ACB at its end, remains
to be obtained, and the applicant/accused cannot
interfere in those proceedings in any manner
whatsoever and thus, no purpose would be served in
keeping the applicant/accused behind the bar;
13.8 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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 14 of 25
-- 14 of 25 --
with prosecution evidence in any manner
whatsoever;
13.9 Further, the present case 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;
13.10 The applicant/accused, being a government servant
and having clean service record, has deep roots in
the society and therefore, there is no likelihood of
him absconding away; and
13.11 The bail is rule and jail is an exception and the
accused is presumed to be innocent unless held
guilty.
14. Ld. Counsel, therefore, urged that the applicant/accused
Sunil Kumar may be released on bail on such terms and
conditions as deemed fit by the Court.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State:
15. While opposing the bail application of applicant/accused
Sunil Kumar, Ld. PP for State, inter alia, advanced the
following arguments:
15.1 The applicant/accused, who was posted as Assistant
Superintendent in Rohini Jail, has been named in
FIR;
15.2 The applicant/accused had been receiving bribe
money in the bank accounts of his private
employees, who were employed by him for running
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 15 of 25
-- 15 of 25 --
Mother Dairy Booth, allotted to him, and concerned
bank account holders have turned up as PWs, and
there are other 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;
15.3 UTP namely Yogesh Bhati connected with the case,
has also been examined after arrest of the
applicant/accused, who has also disclosed the similar
facts;
15.4 The investigation is underway, 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; and
15.5 Apart from bail applications of co-accused persons
namely Yogesh, Viplove Khari and Harendra
Bansal, the first bail application of the
applicant/accused was also dismissed, vide detailed
common order dated 24.08.2026, passed by this
Court. However, co-accused namely Jagbir was
admitted to bail, vide order dated 10.09.2026, passed
by this Court.
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 16 of 25
-- 16 of 25 --
16. Ld. PP, therefore, urged that the present bail application
may be dismissed.
Analysis & Conclusion
17. 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 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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 17 of 25
-- 17 of 25 --
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 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.
18. 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
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 18 of 25
-- 18 of 25 --
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
dated 14.02.2026 for 16.02.2026, on which date, he was
also arrested in this case. 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.
19. It may 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,
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 19 of 25
-- 19 of 25 --
vide common order dated 07.04.2026, co-accused namely
Manish was admitted to bail, vide order 13.04.2026 and
another co-accused namely Jagbir was admitted to bail,
vide order dated 10.09.2026, passed by this Court.
20. Further, it may also be noted here that the bail applications
filed on behalf of the applicants/accused persons herein
were dismissed, vide detailed common order dated
24.08.2026, passed by this Court.
21. Now adverting back to the bail applications under
consideration.
22. The role ascribed to applicant/accused Viplove Khari is
that he had received money in bank accounts of his
acquaintances on different occasions, after he came into
contact with one hardened criminal namely Yogesh Bhati
during his incarceration in Tihar Jail; and he used to hand
over said amount in cash to co-applicant/co-accused
namely Yogesh. The roles ascribed to other two applicants/
accused persons namely Yogesh and Sunil are that while
they were posted as Head Warder and Assistant
Superintendent respectively, they used to harass and
pressurize the family members/ relatives/ friends of
various UTPs, including the father and brother of the
complainant in this case, who were lodged inside the jail,
to pay the money by asking them to transfer the bribe
money in different bank accounts belonging to relatives/
acquaintances/employees of co-applicants/co-accused
persons namely Sunil, and Viplove Khari and
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 20 of 25
-- 20 of 25 --
subsequently, said bribe money used to be received by
them.
23. It is trite law that Court is not supposed to conduct mini
trial at the stage of deciding the bail applications and thus,
it would not be appropriate to give any observation in
respect of the argument advanced on behalf of applicants/
accused persons that for want of any evidence collected
during investigation, offence u/s 308(5) BNS, 2023 is not
attracted against either of them.
24. It is an undisputed fact that the period of 60 days during
which the Investigating Agency could have sought police
custody remand of all these applicants/accused persons,
has already expired from the date of their arrest, they all
been arrested in this case on 16-07-2026. It is also an
admitted position on record that IO never sought any
police custody remand of either of these three accused
persons at any point of time during such period. Further,
IO had informed the Court during the course of arguments
that the investigation qua applicants/accused persons are
almost completed and they are no more required for their
custodial interrogation in any manner.
25. Though, IO has mentioned in his replies to the bail
applications under consideration that investigation is under
way and number of Pws and alleged persons are still to be
examined and the applicants/ accused persons may hamper
investigation in the event of being released on bail,
however, the entire replies are found to be silent as to why
the applicants/accused persons are required to be further
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 21 of 25
-- 21 of 25 --
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 PWs
and alleged persons are still to be examined/ interrogated.
26. There has been material change in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, after dismissal of
previous bail applications moved on behalf of these three
applicants/ accused persons, inasmuch as the investigation
was shown to be at crucial stage at that point of time; and
IO could have sought police custody of either of them at
that stage, but now, even as per the submissions made by
IO, the investigation qua them is almost completed.
Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that mobile phone of
complainant and of co-accused persons, containing alleged
audio recordings prior to trap proceedings, have already
been seized and got deposited in FSL. Thus, the entire
evidence is mainly documentary in nature and there is
nothing on record to show that the applicants/accused
persons are in a position to tamper with the evidence in
any manner whatsoever.
27. Even otherwise, it is nowhere the case of the Investigating
Agency that the applicants/accused persons are not
permanent residents of Delhi and/or are flight risks in any
manner. Further, the applicants/accused persons are
continuously in custody since 16.07.2026 i.e. for the last
more than 67 days or so. Though, the applicant/accused
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 22 of 25
-- 22 of 25 --
Viplove Khari is shown to be previously involved in three
other criminal cases, however, Ld. Counsel of said
applicant/accused informed the Court that he has already
been granted in said matters. The other two
applicants/accused persons namely Yogesh and Sunil, are
not shown to be previously involved in any other criminal
case. Both of them are public servants and are stated to be
having unblemished service record. Moreover, the
investigation may take considerable time even as per the
submissions made by IO as role of other officials/private
persons, is still underway.
28. Though, it is mentioned in the replies filed by IO that
applicants/accused persons may influence the prosecution
witnesses and may tamper with the evidence in the event
of grant of bail to them, however, as rightly argued by Ld.
Counsels of applicants/accused persons, some of the PWs
who allegedly disclosed the role allegedly played by
applicants/accused persons, were already examined during
the course of investigation since prior to their arrest in this
case. The prosecution has failed to produce any material
showing that the applicants/accused persons ever
attempted to influence any of those PWs, either at the time
when they were not got joined during investigation, or
even after they were called upon to join the investigation.
Even otherwise, neither any concrete basis of such
apprehension is disclosed in the replies, nor shown before
the Court during the course of submissions. Hence, the
Court is of the view that there is no reason to detain
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 23 of 25
-- 23 of 25 --
these applicants/accused persons behind the jail any
further.
29. In view of the reasons mentioned hereinbefore and keeping
in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
including the period of incarceration of applicants/ accused
persons, the nature of evidence alleged against them, and
the role allegedly played by them in the commission of the
crime, Court is of the view that all the bail applications in
hand deserve to be allowed.
30. Accordingly, applicants/accused persons namely Viplove
Khari s/o Sh. Anil Khari; Yogesh s/o Sh. Surat Singh; and
Sunil s/o Sh. Jagdev Singh are admitted to bail on their
furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with
one surety in the like amount, however, subject to the
following conditions:-
30.1 That they shall join the investigation in this case as
and when so required by the IO;
30.2 That they shall not try to contact or influence,
directly or indirectly, complainant or any other
witness of present case and shall not tamper with
evidence;
30.3 That they shall not misuse the liberty of bail by
indulging in commission of similar offence(s) in
future;
30.4 That they shall appear before the Court on each and
every date of hearing, when so required;
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 24 of 25
-- 24 of 25 --
30.5 That they shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court;
30.6 That they shall intimate to the Court in case of
change of their residential address; and
30.7 In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions imposed by the Court by either of the
applicants/ accused persons, it shall be open for the
State to apply for cancellation of bail being granted
to him.
31. All the three bail applications stand disposed off in the
aforesaid terms.
32. Copy of this order be given Dasti to both the sides.
33. Copy of this order be also sent to concerned Jail
Superintendent, for being delivered to the accused persons,
as per the Rules.
34. It is hereby made clear that nothing mentioned herein shall
tantamount to expression of any opinion by this Court on
merits of the case and the observations made hereinbefore,
are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail
applications.
(Vidya Prakash)
Special Judge, PC Act (ACB)-01
RACC, New Delhi.
22-09-2026(r)
Bail Matter Nos.:256/2026, 260/2026 & 263/2026, FIR No.4/2026, PS :ACB Page 25 of 25
-- 25 of 25 --