Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matter No. 1220/2025
Samyak Jain Vs. State
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC
25.09.2025
ORDER
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’), seeking
anticipatory bail for applicant/accused Samyak Jain, in FIR No.
17/2025, registered in Police Station-Cyber Cell, New Delhi
District, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
2. The case of prosecution is that the complainant was known
to the accused since childhood and it is alleged by the
complainant that she was induced by the accused to invest in
forged gold bonds and corporate bonds purportedly of Wells
Fargo and I-Shares. It is further alleged by the complainant that
on such inducement the complainant and her father transferred a
sum of Rs.11 lakhs into the bank account provided by the
applicant/accused. The investigation has revealed that these bank
accounts were registered in the name of applicant/accused
Samyak Jain.
3. It is further alleged by the complainant that the
applicant/accused forged e-mail IDs resembling Wells Fargo’s
official domain and sent forged investment certificates. The CAF
verification of the mobile numbers used shows that they were
registered either in the name of accused or his mother.
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
4. As per the report of the Investigating Officer, repeated
notices dated 05.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 were issued to the
applicant to join the investigation, but the applicant neither
appeared nor cooperated in the investigation.
5. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that
applicant is young boy and has been falsely implicated in the
present matter by the complainant. It is also submitted that the
complainant has filed a false and motivated complaint so as to
harass the applicant/ accused and to extract money.
6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also submits that the
applicant is a permanent resident, having deep roots in the
society and there is no possibility of absconding. Thus, it is said
that he is not a flight risk.
7. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that
no recovery is pending in the present matter; the documents are
already taken into custody by the investigating machinery and as
the applicant is not required for any custodial interrogation, thus
he be given protection of anticipatory bail.
8. Ld. Counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has
voluntarily handed over a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant
in lieu of the settlement. Further, the applicant is ready to pay the
balance amount if given protection by this court.
9. Ld. Counsel for the applicant places reliance on the
following cases:
i. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.T., Chandigarh, SLP (Crl.)
No.9949/2023.
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
ii. Sidharaman Satalingappa Mahatre Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.
10. The present application is strongly opposed by the State on
the grounds that the investigation is at a crucial stage; the cheated
money has to be recovered and the source of forged documents
and E-mail IDs is yet to be traced. It is further argued by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State that despite repeated notices by the
investigating machinery, applicant/accused failed to appear
before the police. It is also vehemently argued that the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary to recover the cheated
money and to unearth the entire conspiracy.
Court Observations:
11. This court has considered the arguments advanced from
both the sides.
12. It is observed from the record that substantial sums were
transferred by the complainant into the bank accounts registered
in the name of accused Samyak Jain. Prima facie forged
investment certificates and e-mails were used in the commission
of the offence. It is also observed by this court that notices to join
investigation were not complied with by the applicant, showing
the non-cooperation and evasive conduct of the accused.
13. The recovery of cheated amount and verification of forged
documents is pending, requiring custodial interrogation. At this
stage, it is relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 282, wherein it was observed that:
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
“9…... It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions
dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest
should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases
where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of
a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory
bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In
other words, the position is that the power to grant
anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.PC is an
exceptional power and should be exercised only in
exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is
to ensure that a person should not be harassed or
humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal
vendetta of the complainant………...”
14. In the case of SFIO Vs. Aditya Sarda, SLP (Crl.) No.
13956/2023, decided on 9th April 2025, it was observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the accused persons who
evade judicial process and obstructs the execution of warrants,
especially in serious economic offences are not entitled to the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
15. One of the main submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the
applicant was that the applicant has already paid Rs.4 lakhs to the
complainant and he is further ready to pay the alleged cheated
amount, if given benefit of the provision of anticipatory bail. In
this context, this court is guided by the directions passed in the
case of Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra (2025)
SCC Online 1571, decided on 28th July 2025, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed:
“19. By this order, we make it clear and that too in the
form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of
the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail
or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused
might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining
appropriate reliefs.
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
20. The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall
decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly
on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial
Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on
any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be
ready and willing to make.”
16. In light of the above discussions, this court after taking
into consideration the seriousness of allegations, involvement of
forged and fabricated documents and the evasive conduct of the
applicant observes that the need of custodial interrogation cannot
be ruled out. Hence, this court do not find any merit in the
application of Samyak Jain seeking anticipatory bail.
17. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of applicant
Samyak Jain stands dismissed. The applicant is directed to join
the investigation.
18. A copy of the order be given dasti to the Ld. Counsel for
the applicant.
19. A copy of the order be sent to the Investigating Officer for
his/ her information.
(Aparna Swami)
Bail Roster Judge/ASJ-07
NDD/PHC/New Delhi
25.09.2025
FIR No. 17/2025
PS Cyber Cell, New Delhi
U/S. 419/420/467/468/471 IPC Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --