Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matters 1690/2026
STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs. SUSHIL CHAWLA
FIR No. 36/2025
PS CYBER NEW DELHI
U/sec 112(2)/317(2)/318(4)/61(2) BNS
CNR No. DLND01-007523-2026
04.08.2026
This is second application under section 483 BNSS for grant of regular
bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Sushil Chawla.
Present: Sh. A. B. Asthana, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
None for accused/applicant.
Arguments on application have already been heard and
today matter is fixed for orders.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1. It was argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he has
been falsely implicated in this case on the disclosure statement of co-
accused Late Rajesh Khanna and he is in JC since 31.12.2025. It was
further argued that the principal issue which remained unadjudicated in
the earlier bail proceedings pertains to the very commission fo alleged
offence of cheating. It was further argued that upon scrutiny of NCRP
portal, it was revealed that Bank account No. 10231599415 maintained in
IFDC Bank had been utilized for receiving cyber fraud/cheated amounts.
It was further argued that four separate complaints were registered
against account No. 10231599415. All the complaints pertain to
Maharashtra and Karnataka. It was further argued that there is no
allegation attributing to accused/applicant any direct role in the
commission of the alleged act of cheating. There is no allegation that any
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
1/9
-- 1 of 9 --
amount was credited to the bank account of accused/applicant. The only
allegation is that his mobile number was allegedly used during the course
of transaction under investigation. It was further argued that prosecution
case is alleged commission of offences punishable under section 318(2)
and 318(4) BNSS, however, the essential ingredients required to
constitute the offence under the said sections are absent in so far as
accused/applicant is concerned. It was further argued that alleged
incident took place on 31.07.2025, however, FIR was registered on
19.11.2025 i.e., after an unexplained delay of nearly three and a half
months and prosecution failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for
such extraordinary delay despite the fact that alleged transactions were
traceable through banking channels and complaints had already been
received through NCRP portal.
1.1 It was further argued that investigating agency failed to
collect any independent, substantive or legal admissible evidence to
demonstrate that applicant/accused was involved in the incorporation of
the alleged shell entities, operation of the accounts, routing of funds and
commission of alleged offences. It was further argued that companies in
which accused/applicant has been admittedly shows as Director, namely
Adhiswar Nivesh P. Ltd., MTT Network, MTT Projects, MTT Concepts
and Melrose Creation are entirely distinct entities and do not form part of
the twenty companies against which the NCRP complaints relied upon by
the prosecution. The prosecution has not alleged that these companies
received cheated funds, nor established any nexus between the activities
between these entities and transaction under investigation. It was further
argued that investigating agency has failed to identify even a single
transaction showing transfer of any part of the alleged proceeds to
accused/applicant’s personal account. It was further argued that
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
2/9
-- 2 of 9 --
prosecution case rests entirely upon alleged electronic and documentary
linkages such as mobile number association, SMS alerts, WhatsApp
chats, banking record and corporate documentation. However, mere
receipt of SMS alerts cannot establish ownership, operation or control of
bank accounts. It was further argued that all the evidences are in
possession of investigating agency, investigation against
accused/applicant has already been complete and charge sheet has
already been filed and no useful purpose will be served in keeping
accused/applicant in custody. It was further argued that these grounds
were never relied upon by the accused in previous bail applications and
they were not considered by the court in previous bail orders. Hence, it is
prayed that accused/applicant be released on bail as he is ready to abide
with any condition imposed by the court.
1.2 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Dildar Singh Vs. State of
Punjab AIR 2006 SC 3084, Dell International Services P. Ltd. Vs. Adeel
Feroze and Ors 2024:DHC:4954, Rudra Kumar Verma Vs. State of NCT
of Delhi Bail Application No. 4375/2024, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI AIR
2012 Supreme Court 830, Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr. 2018 (3) SCC 22, Sandeep Kumar Bafna VS. State of Maharashtra
2014 16 SCC 623, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing
Undertrial Prisoners) Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731, Ashim Vs.
National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695 and Hussainara
Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 to fortify
his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State vehemently
opposed the application stating that as per reply filed by IO, during
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
3/9
-- 3 of 9 --
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.
2.1 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
cheated amount it appeared that same was used as a mule account for
receiving and transmitting cheated amount.
2.2 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 accused/applicant Sushil Chawla (his family friend). He further
disclosed that the company was opened in his name by accused/applicant
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 accused/applicant Sushil and Rajesh Kumar Sharma. He further
disclosed that Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Sushil Chawla (applicant) also
made him director in 20 more companies using his documents. They used
to siphon off cyber fraud cheated money through those companies.
2.3 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.
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
4/9
-- 4 of 9 --
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.
2.4 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 (applicant) and 32 NCRP
Cyber Fraud complaints on this account. Further Sushil Chawla
(applicant) is director in three other individual companies and accused
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.
2.5 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.
2.6 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 Sushil Chawla was arrested on 31.12.2025.
2.7 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.
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
5/9
-- 5 of 9 --
3. Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
4. Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in nature.
During scrutiny of complaints of NCRP portal bank account No.
10231599415 of IDFC Bank was found to be used to receive the
cyber/cheated amount. The said account was registered in the name of
Kudremukh Trading (OPC) P. Ltd. and Sh. Rajesh Khanna was the
director of the said company. Total five complaints were found to be
registered against the said account. Notice was served upon Rajesh
Khanna, who joined the investigation and disclosed that he was made
Director in the company by accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma and accused
Sushil Chawla (applicant) and the control of the transfer of funds are in
their hands only. Accused/applicant was arrested as he did not cooperate
during investigation.
4.1 Mobile phone of accused/applicant was found registered as
official contact for Yes Bank accounts of two primary shell entities
Kudremukh Trading (OPC) P. Ltd. (35 NCRP cyber fraud complaints)
and Munnar Furnishing (OPC) P. Ltd. (32 complaints). As per technical
analysis, accused/applicant started receiving Yes Bank alerts exclusively
from 02.06.2025 and received nearly 2400 SMS from 02.06.2025 to
26.12.2025 which clearly shows his involvement.
4.2 This is third bail application moved on behalf of accused as
earlier one was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2026 by Ld. ASJ, PHC
and the second application was dismissed as withdrawn before Hon’ble
High Court on 06.07.2026. It is argued on behalf of accused that grounds
pleaded in present application have not been pleaded in previous bail
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
6/9
-- 6 of 9 --
applications and therefore, they were never considered and adjudicated
upon by the court.
In Neeraj Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Bail
Application No. 749/2025 decided on 18.03.2025, Hon’ble High Court
observed as under:
“ Para7. The practise of filing the successive bail applications in
short interval of time, thus, without there being a change in
circumstance is deprecated. Even though it is contended that the
grounds raised in preferring the present application were not agitated
on an earlier occasion, the present case is one where the applicant’s
bail applications have been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court on two occasions on merits. It is pertinent to note that the
present application is fourth bail application preferred by the
applicant within a span of one year. The applicant has not cited any
reason as to why such grounds as the ones sought to be raised could
not be agitated on previous occasions. While it is the right of the
accused to prefer successive bail applications when there is a change
in circumstance, it cannot be denied that if an accused is allowed to
persistently file repeated applications merely on the contention that he
was unable to take some grounds previously, the same would only
lead to filing of endless applications unless a favourable order is
received.”
It has been categorically held that there has to be change in
circumstance for filing successive bail application. Ld. Defence counsel
Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal has argued that Ld. Trial court has not taken the
cognizance of offence of cheating and the rest of the offence are
punishable upto three years of imprisonment. When the previous bail
applications were disposed off on 03.06.2026 and 06.07.2026, these
grounds were in existence as order on cognizance passed by ld. Trial
Court was on record. When bail was dismissed on merits on 03.06.2026
by Ld. ASJ/PHC then the entire record was considered and similar is the
status of order dated 06.07.2026 passed by Hon’ble High Court though
the bail was withdrawn. Therefore, after 06.07.2026, there is no change
in circumstance and the grounds pleaded on behalf of accused were
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
7/9
-- 7 of 9 --
already on record on 06.07.2026. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon’ble High Court, argument of Ld. Counsel with regard to grounds
pleaded in this application were never pleaded in previous bail
application stands rejected.
4.3 The judgment/order relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant is not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts. Moreover, granting bail is a discretion which is
to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance of each case.
In Mansab Ali Vs. Irsan and Anr. 2003 SC 707, it has been held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it is
required to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing
valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in
general.
4.4 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav 2005 SC 91, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused has a
right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court
entertaining such subsequent bail application has a duty to consider the
reasons or grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In
such cases, the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds
which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the
earlier application.
4.5 Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that
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 and there is every possibility that
accused/applicant may commit further offence of similar nature, if
released on bail. Moreover, this court has dismissed bail application of
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
8/9
-- 8 of 9 --
co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sharma vide order dated 31.07.2026 and there
is no ground to change the opinion in the present bail application also as
role of the present accused akin with the co-accused Rajesh Kumar
Sharma. Hence, I do not find any reason to exercise discretion in his
favour.
4.6 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
judicial discipline and proprietary, I am of the considered view that no
ground is made out for grant of bail to accused/applicant Sushil Chawla.
Therefore, the application moved on behalf of the accused/applicant
Sushil Chawla stands dismissed.
Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
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
04.08.2026
FIR No. 36/2025
	PS Cyber New Delhi
	State Vs. Sushil Chawla
9/9
-- 9 of 9 --