Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1/6
3 Bail Matters 2152/2026
THE STATE AND ORS Vs. REHAN AYAZ KHAN
FIR No. 62/2026
PS (CYBER NEW DELHI)
16.09.2026
Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the State.
Sh. Yatin Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
IO HC Sandeep Phogat in person.
Arguments on bail application of accused heard.
Put up for orders at 02:30 PM.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
Bail Roster Judge/ASJ (POCSO) -06/
PHC/NDD/16.09.2026
At 02:30 PM.
Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the State.
Sh. Yatin Dhawan, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant.
ORDER
1. This is bail application u/s 483 of BNSS, 2023 for
grant of bail filed by applicant/accused Rehan Ayaz Khan @ Goli,
S/o Sh. Ayaz Khan.
2. Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations against the applicant are general and omnibus in nature.
No specific victim has identified the applicant as the person who
induced or cheated him/her. The prosecution case is primarily based
upon documentary and electronic evidence such as bank account
records, NCRP complaints, CDRs and mobile phone data, all of
which are already in the possession of the investigating agency. It
has been argued that any amount credited to his bank account was
received in the ordinary course of transactions as represented to him
at the relevant time and he had no knowledge or reason to believe
-- 1 of 6 --
2/6
that the said amount was connected with any alleged unlawful
activity. The applicant is willing to explain the nature and source of
such transactions before this Court and during the course of
investigation. It has been argued that no useful purpose shall be
served by keeping the applicant behind bars as the investigation is
substantially documentary in nature and no further custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required. The applicant is a
permanent resident of Delhi and has deep roots in society. There is
no likelihood of absconding or evading the process of law. It has
been argued that the applicant undertakes to join the investigation as
and when required by the investigating officer and shall fully
cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has remained in JC
and his further incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment,
which is impermissible in law. The applicant has clean antecedents
and is the sole earning member of his family and applicant
undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court while
granting bail.
3. Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant has relied upon the
following judgments:
I.
Raj Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 1312/2026
decided on 21.04.2026;
II.
Shashank Pathak Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, bail appln. 3199/2025, Crl.
M.A. 24810/2025 and CRL.M.A. 28103-28104/2025 decided on 03.12.2025;
III.
Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln.
2718/2026;
IV.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40;
V.
Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 ;
VI.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) to SCC 51.
4. Reply filed by the IO. Ld. PP for the State has opposed
the bail application on the basis of the reply filed by the IO. It is
submitted that the present case has been registered regarding an
-- 2 of 6 --
3/6
organized Cyber Fraud Syndicate, wherein innocent persons were
cheated through online means and the cheated amount was received
and routed through various Mule Bank Accounts.
5. Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
6. Gist of the allegations are that due to increate in cyber
fraud, analysis of NCRP complaints were made and the role of the
accused/applicant surfaced as a person involved in procuring Bank
Accounts/Bank Account Kits from different persons and supplying
the same to persons connected with Cyber Fraud activities against
commission. The Union Bank of India Account No.
352702010716815, maintained in the name of co-accused Bhawana,
was analysed and found linked with four NCRP Complaints. The
said co-accused Bhawana was traced and she revealed that she
provided her account to her husband Preet @ Golu who further
disclosed that he provided the account of his wife to present
accused/applicant in exchange of commission for operating fake
franchise fraud etc. The financial analysis revealed receipt and
further routing of amounts relating to Cyber Fraud Complaints
through the said account. The accused/applicant disclosed that after
obtaining the account of co-accused Bhawana from co-accused Preet
@ Golu, he further supplied it to another person through Porter
Delivery Service. The accused Rehan further disclosed that he had
contacted persons dealing in bank accounts through Instagram
advertisements and was involved in obtaining and supplying bank
accounts for monetary consideration/commission. Thus, his role is
alleged to be that of a link/intermediary in procurement and supply
of Mule Bank Accounts. After his arrest, one Apple iPhone X, White
Colour, containing SIM No. 9211816872 (Airtel) was recovered
-- 3 of 6 --
4/6
from his possession and taken into police possession through a
separate Retention-cum-Seizure Memo. The relevant electronic
material and communications were examined during investigation
and the material relied upon has been incorporated in the Charge
Sheet. The Punjab National Bank account of accused Rehan was also
found connected with five Cyber Fraud Complaints. That analysis of
the relevant bank records and financial trail revealed Cyber Fraud
related transactions of approximately Rs. 2.23 Lakhs connected with
the said account. Thus, the involvement attributed to the accused is
not confined to a single isolated account or transaction. The
prosecution case is supported by Bank Records, Financial Trail,
NCRP Complaint Records, statements of co-accused/witnesses,
Disclosure Statement, recovery of mobile phone and other
documentary/electronic evidence collected during investigation.
The case does not rest solely upon the disclosure statement of a co-
accused. There is independent documentary and electronic material
on record which, according to the prosecution, corroborates the role
attributed to accused Rehan.
The allegations concern an alleged organized Cyber Fraud
network in which different persons were performing different roles,
including procurement of bank accounts, receipt of cheated money
and routing of such funds through Mule Accounts. The alleged role
of the accused in procurement and supply of bank accounts is
therefore material to the investigation and prosecution case. The
investigation has been completed and Charge Sheet has already been
filed before the Court on the basis of the material collected during
investigation. The Charge Sheet contains the relevant documentary,
electronic and financial evidence against the accused. The specific
-- 4 of 6 --
5/6
role attributed to the accused, his alleged connection with multiple
NCRP complaints, the financial trail and the material collected
during investigation are relevant considerations at the stage of
deciding the present bail application.
7. The reliance placed upon the judgment of Raj Kumar (Supra)
is misplaced. The said judgment is distinguishable on its own facts
and the factual matrix therein is not applicable to the present case,
wherein there is prima facie material regarding the specific role of
the applicant in procurement and supply of bank accounts and his
linkage with multiple NCRP complaints and financial transactions.
8. Similarly, the judgment of Shashank Pathak(Supra) is not
applicable to the facts in hand having regard to the specific material
collected against the accused/applicant and his linkage with multiple
NCRP complaints and financial transactions.
9. Reliance has also been placed upon Santosh Kumar Gupta
(Supra). The said judgment is also not applicable to the facts in hand
as in the said case, accused had done some money transfer in
connection with contractual assignment and not with respect to
cyber fraud while in the present case, prosecution prima facie
established a chain of sequance of cyber fraud connecting the same
with accused/applicant herein.
10. Learned counsel has also relied upon Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40; Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3
SCC 22; and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. The
said judgments lay down general principles governing grant of bail;
however, the said principles have to be considered in the backdrop of
the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present matter, there
-- 5 of 6 --
6/6
is prima facie material connecting the applicant with procurement
and supply of bank accounts, multiple NCRP complaints and the
corresponding financial trail. Hence, the aforesaid judgments,
though laying down settled principles, do not warrant grant of bail to
the applicant in the facts of the present case.
In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
specific role attributed to the accused, his alleged connection with
multiple Cyber Fraud complaints and the prima facie material
available on record, the accused is not entitled to the discretionary
relief of regular bail at this stage.
11. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by
applicant/accused Rehan Ayaz Khan @ Goli, S/o Sh. Ayaz Khan is
dismissed.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case. The observations made above are
prima facie and confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail
application.
TCR be sent back to the Court concerned. Bail application
stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of order be given dasti as
prayed for.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
Bail Roster Judge/ASJ (POCSO) -06/
PHC/NDD/16.09.2026
-- 6 of 6 --