Final Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Bail Matter No. 2206/2026
THE STATE AND ORS Vs. AJAY BHAGAT
FIR No. 118/2026 (PS- CYBER NEW DELHI)
16.09.2026
Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. PP for the
State.
Sh. Girish Kumar & Sh. Kishlay Kumar, Ld.
counsels for accused/applicant.
SI Prem Prakash on behalf of IO.
IO SI Jagdeep Nara through VC.
Arguments on bail application of accused heard.
Put up for orders at 02:30 PM.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
Roster Judge/ASJ (POCSO)-06,
NDD/PHC/New Delhi
16.09.2026
At 02:30 PM.
Bail Order
1. Vide this order, this Court shall dispose off the second
anticipatory bail application u/s 482 of the BNSS moved on behalf of
accused/applicant Ajay Bhagat.
2. It has been argued that the complainant has already
received a substantial sum of Rs. 1,91,000/- from accused Raj Bhagat
towards the total alleged cheated amount of Rs. 6,08,024/-. Further, a
sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- was frozen in account no. 110244132000 in the
1/7
-- 1 of 7 --
name of co-accused Akash Kumar Kalindi (in judicial custody) and a
releasing order has already been passed by the Ld. JMFC, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi. It is a matter of record that the Applicant
has neither received any amount nor participated in layering or
concealing the proceeds. The entire sum of Rs. 6,08,024/- stands
transferred by the complainant into the accounts of co-accused Akash
Kumar Kalindi, Rajiv Kumar Bhartiy, Dhananjay Provod, Praveen
Kumar and others. No nexus whatsoever exists between the Applicant
and the alleged offence, save that he is acquainted with co-accused
Akash Kumar Kalindi and Raj Bhagat, hailing from the same native
place. During the hearing of the earlier bail application, the IO falsely
stated that the Applicant is a family member of accused Raj Bhagat
and Akash Kumar Kalindi. The Applicant is neither a relative of Raj
Bhagat nor of Akash Kumar Kalindi; this assertion was concocted by
the IO solely to secure dismissal of the bail application. The IO has
further advanced an untenable ground for rejection of bail, namely
that the Applicant's name emerged pursuant to a disclosure statement
of a co-accused coupled with WhatsApp chats. The IO has falsely
claimed that the Applicant's name was unearthed through electronic
surveillance or WhatsApp chats. However, the WhatsApp chats filed
along with the chargesheet do not substantiate the IO's claim, as no
such communication ever took place. The Applicant was neither
named in the FIR nor was any specific role attributed to him therein.
Although the Investigating Agency subsequently sought to associate
the Applicant with the investigation, significantly, upon completion
of investigation, the chargesheet filed on 20.05.2026 does not
2/7
-- 2 of 7 --
mention the Applicant's name, nor is any role or involvement
attributed to him anywhere in the chargesheet. The principal accused
persons in the present case were arrested on 25.03.2026 and taken
into custody during the course of investigation. Thus, the
investigation had substantially progressed even prior to the filing of
the chargesheet. It is further pertinent to mention that co-accused Raj
Bhagat has already been granted regular bail by the Ld. JMFC
(Mahila Court-02), Patiala House Court, New Delhi, vide order dated
17.08.2026. The said order was passed, inter alia, in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that an amount
of Rs. 1,91,000/- was returned to the complainant. The Applicant
respectfully submits that the present application is not an attempt to
seek review of the order dated 31.07.2026. The present application is
being preferred on account of subsequent and material developments,
including: (i) issuance of a fresh notice dated 13.08.2026 after
dismissal of the earlier application, which was received by the
Applicant's mother with a direction to join investigation on
01.09.2026; (ii) continued apprehension of arrest despite filing of the
chargesheet; and (iii) subsequent grant of regular bail to co-accused
Raj Bhagat on 17.08.2026. The Applicant is ready and willing to join
and cooperate with the investigation and undertakes to comply with
all lawful directions/notices issued by the Investigating Officer.
During arguments, it has been argued that complainant be called as
applicant is ready to settle the matter with the complainant. The
Applicant has clean antecedents and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with evidence. Ld. counsel for applicant has
3/7
-- 3 of 7 --
relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr.,
Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. and
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. State of Punjab to substantiate his
arguments.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Spl. PP for the State, relying
upon the reply of the IO, submits that the complainant Smt. Mansi
Agnihotri was contacted via Telegram for an investment scam.
Scammers gained trust with small returns, then claimed funds were
frozen due to a data error and demanded further payments. She
transferred Rs. 6,08,024/-. Money trail showed Rs. 4,63,000/-
credited to Akash Kumar Kalindi's Canara Bank A/c No.
110244132000. Akash joined investigation at PS Sitaram Dera,
Jamshedpur, with phones; he opened 10 accounts to siphon funds. His
phone contained incriminating data on account operations with
accomplices Raj Bhagat and Ajay Bhagat. Akash was arrested. Raid
at Raj Bhagat's house: he refused entry and deleted
WhatsApp/Telegram data. Notice u/s 35(3) BNSS served. Money
trail showed Rs. 1,91,000/- received by Raj Bhagat via his wife Payal
Kumari's IndusInd A/c No. 152012102004 from Akash's account.
This account was reported four times on NCRP from Delhi, Tamil
Nadu and U.P. Accused Raj Bhagat was examined and arrested. Total
43 NCRP complainants linked to his account. Raid at Jamshedpur;
based on technical evidence, WhatsApp chats on mule-account
management, disclosures and identification, a notice under Section
35(3) BNSS was served on the applicant Ajay Bhagat to join
4/7
-- 4 of 7 --
investigation, which he failed to comply with, thereby demonstrating
non-cooperation and a risk of tampering with evidence or evading the
investigative process if released on bail. Further, Ld. Spl. PP for the
State has vehemently argued that the first anticipatory bail application
of the applicant was dismissed on 31.07.2026 and there is no change
of circumstances to allow the fresh anticipatory bail application.
4. Arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the applicant
and State have been heard. Case record has been perused.
5. The allegations levelled against the accused/applicant
are of a serious and grave nature, involving a structured cyber-fraud
conspiracy that resulted in substantial financial loss to the
complainant. During the commission of the cyber fraud, the
complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs. 6,08,024/-. Out of this
amount, Rs. 4,63,000/- was directly transferred into the bank account
of co-accused Akash Kumar Kalindi, who acted as one of the primary
recipients of the defrauded funds. Subsequently, accused Akash
Kumar further transferred Rs.1,91,000/- into the account of Payal
Kumari, who is the wife of co-accused Raj Bhagat. This layered
movement of funds across multiple accounts indicates a deliberate
attempt to obscure the trail of illicit proceeds and integrate them
through family-linked accounts, a hallmark of organized cyber-fraud
syndicates. During the course of investigation, the name of
applicant Ajay Bhagat surfaced on the basis of technical
evidence, WhatsApp chat records pertaining to mule account
management and disclosure statements recorded from the accused
persons. The material on record reveals that Ajay Bhagat was actively
5/7
-- 5 of 7 --
coordinating with the co-accused persons during the execution of the
said fraud. The submission that co-accused Raj Bhagat has been
granted bail by the Ld. JMFC, Patiala House Courts, does not merit
acceptance.
6. It is pertinent to note that more than a month has
elapsed since the first anticipatory bail application filed by the
applicant Ajay Bhagat, was dismissed by the Ld. ASJ-07, Patiala
House Courts. Despite the issuance of a fresh notice under Section
35(3) of the BNSS dated 13.08.2026 by the Investigating Officer, the
applicant has neither joined the investigation nor cooperated with the
investigating agency. Such conduct on the part of the applicant raises
serious doubts regarding his bona fides and appears suspicious. The
fact that a co-accused has been granted bail, by itself, does not entitle
the applicant to the same relief, particularly when the role, conduct
and degree of cooperation of the applicant are required to be assessed
independently. In the present case, the applicant’s failure to join the
investigation despite service of a fresh notice and dismissal of
previous anticipatory bail application, distinguishes his case from that
of the co-accused and weighs against the grant of anticipatory bail.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has not made out
a case for grant of anticipatory bail at this stage. Grant of pre-arrest
protection may hamper the ongoing investigation, particularly when
the applicant has failed to join the investigation despite dismissal of
first anticipatory bail application vide order dt. 31.07.2026.
Accordingly, the present application under Section 482
6/7
-- 6 of 7 --
BNSS filed by accused Ajay Bhagat seeking anticipatory bail is
hereby dismissed.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations
made above are confined solely to the adjudication of the present
application.
Copy of this order be given
dasti, as prayed.
(Prabh Deep Kaur)
Roster Judge/ASJ (POCSO)-06,
NDD/PHC/New Delhi
16.09.2026
7/7
-- 7 of 7 --