Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matters 1890/2026
STATE OF DELHI Vs. PUSHKAR CHANDERKANT PAKHALE
FIR No. 15/2025
PS CYBER SOUTH WEST DELHI
U/sec 318(4)/319(2)/61(2)/3(5) BNS and 66C/66D of IT Act, 2000
CNR No. DLND01-008286-2026
03.08.2026
This is third application under section 483 BNSS for grant of
regular bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Pushkar
Chanderkant Pakhale.
Present: Sh. A. B. Asthana, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
Sh. Vivek Agarwal and Sh. Naresh Kumar, Ld. Counsel
for complainant alongwith complainant.
IO Inspector Kulbir Rana is present.
Reply to the application filed. Copy supplied.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1. It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that he has
been falsely implicated in this case and he is in JC since 19.03.2025.
It is further submitted that he has been apprehended on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused, who was not even arrested and
only bound down. It is further submitted that account where the
cheated amount was deposited was not in the name of
accused/applicant and no recovery whatsoever pertaining to the
account in question has been made from the applicant. It is further
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
1/8
-- 1 of 8 --
submitted that one of the joint holder i.e., Arjun has never been
made an accused in this case. It is further submitted that
investigation against accused/applicant has already been completed
and charge sheet has already been filed and custodial interrogation
of accused/applicant is not required. It is further submitted that
accused is not previously convicted in any matter, however, there is
one more criminal case i.e., FIR No. 70/2021 PS Crime Branch
Chankyapuri. It is further submitted that co-accused in whose
account money was transferred has already been granted bail.
1.1 It is further argued that first bail application of
accused/applicant was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2025.
Thereafter, he preferred regular bail before Hon’ble High Court
which was withdrawn by accused. It is further submitted that
thereafter, accused/applicant moved an application for bail before
Ld. Trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2026
and vide order dated 27.07.2026, bail application was withdrawn on
behalf of accused/applicant on technical grounds. It is further
submitted that since rejection of earlier bail application,
circumstances have changed materially and accused has not
remained in judicial custody for more than 15 months and yet the
trial has not even commenced. It is further submitted that
accused/applicant is suffering from Ulcerative Collitis and he
requires continuous medical treatment. Hence, it is prayed that
accused/applicant be released on bail as he is ready to abide with
any condition imposed by the court.
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
2/8
-- 2 of 8 --
1.2 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another Criminal appeal No. 2787/2024
and Sunder Singh Bhati Vs. The State Bail Application No.
3750/2021 and Rajesh Mahto Vs. State Bail application No.
3921/2021 in support of his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
2. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State has
vehemently opposed the bail application stating that the allegations
against accused/applicant are serious in nature as digital arrest
modus operandi was used in this case. Complainant was
duped/cheated to the total amount of Rs. 48,59,308/-. On
04.03.2025, two transactions of Rs. 28,20,436/- and Rs. 5,70,436/-,
totalling Rs. 33,90,872/- were done by the complainant and the said
amount was settled in the DBS Bank Account No.
8787210000006972 registered in the name of LN Technologies
(OPC) Private Limited with ownership in the name of Karanam
Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar. On 04.03.2025 an amount of
about Rs. 1,15,00,000/- was credited in the said bank account and 8
NCRP complaints were found registered on NCRP Portal (MHA).
2.1 Upon analysis one more bank account no.
259697989497 of Induslnd Bank of LN Technologies (OPC) Private
Limited in the name of Karanam Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar
was found involved wherein 6 NCRP complaints from across the
country were found registered. Notice under section 35(3) BNSS
was served upon Karanam Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar but
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
3/8
-- 3 of 8 --
he failed to join the investigation. During investigation notice under
section 35(3) BNSS was served upon accused Thunga Raj Kumar,
who joined the investigation and DBS and Induslnd Bank accounts
linked mobile numbers 9697989497 (SIM) was recovered from his
possession. Location chart of Mumbai, Raipur, Kolkata and
Lucknow of accused Thunga Raj Kumar’s phone no. 9704368006
was matched with the bank account linked phone number
9697989497 and the alleged bank account holder Karanam Lakshmi
Narayana Santosh Kumar phone number 9100257898. Thereafter,
NBW of Karanam Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar were
obtained from the court of Ld. CJM, Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi.
2.2 On 03.03.2025 Rs. 14,68,436/- were transferred from
the account of the complainant to account no. 2402262757887303
of Youkeen Private Limited, AU Small Finance Bank. During
investigation it was found that Kapil Rambhau Patil and Arjun
Singh Avinash Patil were the directors of Youkeen Private Limited
and six NCRP MHA Portal complainants were found registered on
the said bank account. Kapil Rambhau Patil joined the investigation
and as per the interrogation report of Kapil Patil and technical
evidence, it was found that the said account 2402262757887303 of
AU Small Finance Bank, Phaledi, Mumbai was got accessed by the
applicant/accused Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale by his mobile no.
8805287777 internet at the time of fraud transactions. 6 NCRP
portal complaints were registered against the said account.
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
4/8
-- 4 of 8 --
2.3 It is further submitted that considering the allegations
against accused/applicant, present application may be dismissed in
the interest of justice.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
3. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued on the lines of
Ld. Addl. PP for the State and prayed for dismissal of present bail
application.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused. I have also gone
through the order/judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
5. Allegations against accused/applicant are serious in
nature. Complainant was duped/cheated to the total amount of Rs.
48,59,308/-. Out of the said amount Rs. 14,68,436/- were
transferred to account no. 2402262757887303 of Youkeen Private
Limited, AU Small Finance Bank. Kapil Rambhau Patil and Arjun
Singh Avinash Patil were the directors of Youkeen Private Limited
and six NCRP MHA Portal complainants were found registered on
the said bank account. As per technical evidence, said account
2402262757887303 of AU Small Finance Bank, Phaledi, Mumbai
was got accessed by the applicant/accused Pushkar Chanderkant
Pakhale by his mobile no. 8805287777 internet at the time of fraud
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
5/8
-- 5 of 8 --
transactions. 6 NCRP portal complaints were registered against the
said account.
5.1 In Varinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR
ONLINE 2019 SC 570, it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India as under:
“12. Individual rights of the accused are undoubtedly important.
But equally important is the societal interest for bringing the
offender to book and for the system to send the right message to
all in the society —be it the law abiding citizen or the potential
offender. ‘Human rights’ are not only of the accused but, extent
apart, also of the victim, the symbolic member of the society as
the potential victim and the society as a whole.
13. Law has to cater to wide variety of situations as appear in
society. Law being dynamic, the certainty of the legislation
appears rigid at times whenever a circumstance (set of facts)
appears which is not catered for explicitly. Expediency then
dictates that the higher judiciary, while interpreting the law,
considers such exception(s) as are called for without disturbing
the pith and substance and the original intention of the
legislature. This is required primarily for the reason to help
strike a balance between competing forces – justice being the
end – and also because the process of fresh legislation could
take a long time, which would mean failure of justice, and with
it erosion of public confidence and trust in the justice delivery
system.”
5.2 The judgments relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant are not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts and moreover, granting bail is a discretion
which is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance
of each case.
5.3 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
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
6/8
-- 6 of 8 --
caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and
the interest of the society in general.
5.4 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.
5.5 All the factual grounds have already been discussed by
the court while dismissing bail application dated 24.11.2025.
Accused has also withdrawn his bail application before Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.07.2026. Thereafter,
accused/applicant also withdrawn bail application on 27.07.2026
and all the grounds pleaded in this application were also available at
that time. I find no fresh ground pleaded on behalf of
accused/applicant in this application and period of incarceration is
not a ground for granting bail to accused/applicant.
5.6 The judgments relied upon Ld. Counsel for the
accused/applicant are not applicable to the present case being
distinguishable on facts and moreover, granting bail is a discretion
which is to be exercised by the Court as per facts and circumstance
of each case.
5.7 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the
case and gravity of offences, I am of the considered view that no
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
7/8
-- 7 of 8 --
ground is made out for grant of bail to accused/applicant Pushkar
Chanderkant Pakhale. Therefore, the application moved on behalf of
accused/applicant Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale stands dismissed.
Nothing in this order shall tantamount to an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case during trial.
A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent
concerned for further communication to the accused/applicant.
Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent in compliance of
judgment titled as Ajay Verma Vs. State.
Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Dhirendra Rana)
Bail Roster Judge
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
03.08.2026
FIR No. 15/2025
	PS Cyber South West New Delhi
	State Pushkar Chanderkant Pakhale
8/8
-- 8 of 8 --