Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: FIR No. 47/2022
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Manish Jain
1/2
Bail Matters 2056/2025
STATE OF DELHI Vs. MANISH JAIN
FIR No. 47/2022
PS CYBER NEW DELHI
U/sec 420 IPC
24.02.2026
This is an application under section 482 BNSS for grant of anticipatory
bail moved on behalf of accused/applicant Manish Jain.
Present: Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. (Substitute) Addl. PP for the State.
Mr. Aftab Khan, Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant through
VC.
SI Chetan Rana is present through VC.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED/APPLICANT
1. It is argued on behalf of accused/applicant that no amount
was ever transferred or ever given by key accused Akash Tewatia and
Jyoti Malda to accused/applicant. It is further submitted that
accused/applicant was in search of job and accused Akash Tewatia had
offered to help him to get a job of about Rs. 25,000/- per month. It is
further submitted that entire amount of the complainant was stashed in the
accounts of accused Akash Tewatia and Jyoti Malda. It is further argued
that accused/applicant has joined the investigation and he is ready to join
the investigation as and when required by the IO. Hence, it is prayed that
anticipatory bail may be granted to accused/applicant as he is ready to
abide with any condition imposed by the court.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
-- 1 of 2 --
FIR No. 47/2022
	PS Cyber South West
	State Vs. Manish Jain
2/2
2.1 Per contra, Ld. (Substitute) Addl. PP for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail application.
2.2 It is submitted by IO that accused/applicant has joined the
investigation. It is further submitted that initially accused/applicant had
not joined the investigation and that is why NBWs were obtained against
him. It is further submitted custodial interrogation of accused/applicant is
not required in this case at this stage.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
3. Keeping in view the fact that accused/applicant has joined
the investigation, there is no apprehension of his arrest as his custodial
interrogation is not required by IO at this stage, present application is
dismissed being not maintainable.
3.1 Accused/applicant is directed to join the investigation as and
when required by IO. IO is also directed comply section 35 BNSS and
mandate of Hon’ble Supreme court passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 decided on 02.07.2014 and
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Misc.
Application No. 29164 of 2021 decided on 11.07.2022.
Copy of this order be given dasti as prayed for.
(Dhirendra Rana)
Bail Roster Judge/
ASJ-07/PHC/New Delhi
24.02.2026
-- 2 of 2 --