Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
Bail Matters 731/2026
THE STATE AND ORS Vs. RAJESH KUMAR
FIR No. 36/2025
PS CYBER NEW DELHI
U/sec 112(2)/317(2)/318(4)/61(2) BNS
11.04.2026
This is an application under section 483 BNSS for grant of regular bail
moved on behalf of accused/applicant Rajesh Kumar.
Present: Sh. Gyan Prakash Ray, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
None for the applicant.
Arguments on application have already been heard and today
matter is fixed for orders.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
It was argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he has been
falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of co-
accused Rajesh Khanna, who expired during the pendency of FIR. It was
further argued that accused/applicant was arrested on 31.12.2025 and sent
to JC on 08.01.2026. It was further argued that accused/applicant is MD
of Korn Consult India in an MNC. He is sole bread earner of his family
consisting of old age parents, wife and two minor children (daughter aged
about 7 years and son 3 years). It was further argued that prosecution has
cited 12 witnesses and trial shall take considerable time. It was further
argued that no amount has been received or transacted by the
accused/applicant pertaining to alleged account. It was further argued that
investigation against accused/applicant is complete, evidence is in
-- 1 of 6 --
2
documentary form and there is no possibility of tampering with the
evidence and no useful purpose will be served in keeping
accused/applicant in custody. Hence, it is prayed that accused/applicant
be released on bail as he is ready to abide with any condition imposed by
the court.
Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant has relied upon P. Krishan
Mohan Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) INSC 725, State
of Rajasthan, Jaipur Vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, Arnav Manoranjan
Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427, Ram
Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 598, Sanjay
Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 to fortify his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State vehemently
opposed the application stating that as per reply filed by IO, during
scrutiny of complaints on NCRP Portal, it has been found that one bank
account No. 10231599415 of IDFC Bank was being used to received
Cyber/Cheated amount. During preliminary inquiry, it was found that
account was registered in the name of Kudremukh Trading (OPC) Private
Limited and director of the company is Rajesh Khanna, whose details
have been obtained during technical analysis.
During scrutiny of complaints on NCRP portal it has been
found that total five complaints i.e., acknowledgment No.
31906250106151, acknowledgment No. 31606250072335, No.
21907250078241, No. 21510250027876 and No. 33108250099626 were
found registered against the said account. The manner of receiving of
-- 2 of 6 --
3
cheated amount it appeared that same was used as a mule account for
receiving and transmitting cheated amount.
During investigation, alleged bank account No.
10231599415 of IDFC Bank was in the name of Kudremukh Trading
(OPC) P. Ltd. Notice was served upon Rajesh Khanna (Director), who
joined the investigation and disclosed that he met Rajesh Kumar Sharma
through Sushil Chawla (his family friend). He further disclosed that the
company was opened in his name by Sushil Chawla and Rajesh Kumar
Sharma. He only gave his PAN and Aadhar details to them and control of
transfer of funds was in the hands of Sushil and Rajesh Kumar Sharma.
He further disclosed that Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Sushil Chawla also
made him director in 20 more companies using his documents. They used
to siphon off cyber fraud cheated money through those companies.
PAN No. AALCK1444J was connected with the alleged
company. As per reply received from Yes Bank, account No.
013661900004728 opened in the name of Kudremukh Trading (OPC) P.
Ltd. with Rajesh Khanna being the Director but the mobile number
associated with the account was found to be 9811398999 in the name of
Sushil Chawla and there were 35 NCRP cyber fraud complaints were
found on the said account.
Another PAN No. AASCM3669E, Yes Bank replied that
PAN number was connected with company Munnar Furnishing (OFC) P.
Ltd. The bank account No. 013661900004718 with Rajesh Khanna being
Director but the mobile number associated with account was found to be
as 9811398999 in the name of Sushil Chawla and 32 NCRP Cyber Fraud
complaints on this account. Further Sushil Chawla is director in three
-- 3 of 6 --
4
other individual companies and accused/applicant Rajesh Sharma is
director in seven other individual companies and they both are common
directors in two companies i.e., MTT Network and MTT Project.
Notice under section 35(3) BNSS was served upon accused
Rajesh Kumar to join the investigation on 01.12.2025 but he did not join
the same. Another notice was served upon him on 09.12.2025 and he
joined the investigation but he did not cooperate during the investigation
of the case and never brought his electronic devices. However, later on he
did not join the investigation.
On 31.12.2025, accused/applicant Rajesh Kumar and Sushil
Chawla were traced and notice under section 35(3) BNSS to join the
investigation but later on they joined the investigation and after
interrogation, accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested on 31.12.2025.
It was further argued that allegations against
accused/applicant are serious in nature and there is every likelihood that
accused/applicant may commit further offence, if released on bail.
Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Accused is an important link in crime syndicate involved in
cyber crime. During investigation his phone was seized by the IO and it
was found containing messages and documents related to Munnar
Furnishing and Kudremukh Trading during his chat with one Geeta
Kaushik. The chat corroborates the fact that he is involved in running the
account of Munnar Furnishing. There are whatsapp chats containing
-- 4 of 6 --
5
names of several companies which were disclosed by deceased to accused
Rajesh Khanna which substantiate the allegation against the accused that
these companies were opened by the present accused only by
incorporating the name of Rajesh Khanna as director. Accused and co-
accused Sushil Chawla has disclosed about the role of Pawan Kumar
Rohia and there are whatsapp chats in this regard. Therefore the phone of
the accused and the whatsapp chat recovered from the said phone prima-
facie suggest that accused/applicant was playing an active part in
siphoning of the cheated amount. The content of his mobile phone is
voluminous in nature and it shall be sent to FSL for data recovery which
would further indicate about the role of the present accused.
Co-accused Rajesh Khanna had disclosed in his statement
that he was made director in 20 different companies by present accused
and co-accused Sushil Chawla. The bank accounts associated with these
shell companies are related to 176 cyber fraud complaints pending at
NCRP.
It is also worth consideration that accused tried to mislead
the IO by stating his address as 27410, SF, Vatika India Next, Gurugram,
but it was rented out to someone else. It is also matter of record that
present accused and co- accused Sushil Chawla were traced on technical
surveillance on 31.12.2025. Meaning thereby that accused tried to
mislead the IO and also tried to abscond and this fact goes against him.
The approximate amount involved in 176 cyber fraud complaints is 180
crores which is a point worth consideration by the court and it is a
suggestive of a fact that accused was dealing with cheated amount
through dummy companies.
-- 5 of 6 --
6
I am in agreement with Ld Addl PP for the State that
investigation in this case is still going on as co-accused are yet to be
arrested , complete money trial of 180 crores is yet to be traced and the
data of the phone of the accused is yet to be analysed completely. There is
strong apprehension that accused may tamper with the digital evidence if
released on bail and there is strong possibility that accused may flee away
from justice in view of his previous conduct.
Therefore, considering the above discussion and facts and
circumstances of this case I do not find any merit in the bail application of
accused Rajesh Kumar and it is dismissed accordingly.
Nothing stated above herein shall tantamount of any
expressions on the merits of this case.
Pursuant to directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021 titled as In Re Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail as well as in compliance of judgment titled as Ajay Verma
Vs. State, copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent through e-mail.
Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Dhirendra Rana)
Bail Roster Judge/
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
11.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --