BAIL APPLN./424/2025 of DEVENDRA JHA Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 424/2025DEVENDRA JHA.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Umesh Sinha, Mr. Anil Kr.Singh,Mr.AnubhavSharma,AdvocatesDEVENDRA JHA.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Umesh Sinha, Mr. Anil Kr.Singh,Mr.AnubhavSharma,Advocates

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI).....RespondentThrough:Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for Statewith Insp. Pawan Kumar, ISC, CrimeChanakyapuriThrough:Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for Statewith Insp. Pawan Kumar, ISC, CrimeChanakyapuri

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R03.04.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks grant of regular bail in the proceedingsarisingfromFIRNo.0132/2024,registeredunderSections419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]at P.S. CrimeBranch. The Applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 419, 420,465, 468, 471, 473, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 18, 19 and 20of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994[4].

2.The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

2.1The FIR was registered pursuant to complaint filed by one Ms.Seema Bhasin, alleging that the accused persons, namely, Sandeep Arya,Vijay Kumar Kashyap and Steffy Emmanuel, fraudulently induced herhusband to part with sum of ₹35,00,000/- on the false promise of arranging kidney transplant. Acting upon the compliant, the police conducted raidon 27[th]June, 2024, and arrested co-accused Sumit @ Vijay Kashyap inNoida. This raid led to the recovery of forged documents, counterfeit rubberstamps, and files related to multiple patients and donors. In view of thematerial unearthed during investigation, the relevant provisions of THOTAwere invoked. On the following day, i.e., 28[th]June, 2024, the Applicant andco-accused Sandeep Arya were arrested in this case from five-star hotel inGoa.

2.2Further investigation revealed that the accused persons operated in ahighly organized manner. They initially secured positions as transplantcoordinators at reputable hospitals, where they received training and gainedaccess to internal procedures for kidney transplantation. Using thisknowledge, they targeted patients suffering from renal failure who wereundergoing treatment in hospitals located across Delhi, Faridabad, Mohali,Panchkula, Agra, Indore, and Gujarat.

2.3The accused allegedly contacted prospective kidney donors via socialmedia platforms, preying on their economic vulnerability by offering them₹5 to ₹6 lakhs for kidney. In several cases, the accused fabricated identity and residence documents to portray both donor and recipient as personsfrom different states, thus enabling them to circumvent scrutiny andfacilitate transplants across state lines. These forged documents were then

4 “THOTA”

used to ensure the donors and recipients cleared the medical and committee-level approvals required for transplantation.

2.4On the basis of disclosures made by the accused, the policeapprehended five additional associates, namely, Punit Kumar, Md. HanifShaikh, Cheeka Prashanth, Tej Prakash, and Rohit Khanna @ Narender,from various locations. From the possession of the accused and theirassociates, the police recovered, inter alia, 41 forged seals, 17 mobilephones, 2 laptops, 16 SIM cards, cash amounting to ₹1,50,000/-, as well as numerous fake documents and files relating to donors, recipients, andtransplant procedures.

2.5Till date the police have identified eight patients who underwentkidney transplants. Both the patients as well as the donors have been servednotices under Section 41A of the CrPC and bound down in connection withthe ongoing investigation.

3.Counsel for the Applicant raises the following grounds seeking grantfor bail:

3.1The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He wasemployed merely as the driver for the co-accused Sandeep Arya, who is adistant brother-in-law of the Applicant. Due to financial hardships, theApplicant had accepted the driving job offered by Sandeep Arya. Upon therequest of Sandeep Arya, the Applicant provided him with the details of hisbank account along with the associated debit card, as Sandeep Arya hadassisted him in securing the job and they shared distant familial bond. TheApplicant was, however, unaware of any financial transactions carried outusing his account and denies any involvement in or knowledge of thealleged illegal activities.

3.2The Prosecution has already filed chargesheet/complaint upon thecompletion of investigation. Therefore, the continued detention of theApplicant would serve no fruitful purpose.

3.3No incriminating material, such as forged documents, counterfeitstamps, stamp-making instruments, or medical files were recovered from thepersonal possession of the Applicant. There is no recovery that directly linksthe Applicant to the preparation or use of forged documentation.

3.4The chargesheet names 21 accused persons. Of these, only 8 havebeen arrested, whereas 10 other individuals, who, according to theProsecution’s own case, are the principal beneficiaries and alleged abettorsof the conspiracy, are still at large and have merely been bound down underSection 41A CrPC.

3.5The Applicant should be granted bail on grounds of parity. The co-accused, Puneet Kumar, was granted bail on 25[th]October, 2024 despitefacing more serious allegations. From Puneet Kumar, the Prosecutionrecovered 9 counterfeit stamps, 2 laptops related to the case, and medicalfiles of 2 donors containing forged documents. Additionally, there weremultiple financial transactions between Puneet Kumar and other co-accused.Similarly, another co-accused, Tej Prakash, was granted bail on 29[th]November, 2024. Tej Prakash is alleged to have played central role incontacting clients and sourcing donors for kidney transplants. As per theProsecution, Tej Prakash received payments from clients and facilitated anillegal kidney transplant for his wife. Given that the co-accused personswere granted bail despite more severe allegations, it is only equitable thatthe Applicant be afforded the same relief.

4.On the other hand Mr. Khanna, APP for the State opposes the bail

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

Page 4 of 8

application on the following grounds:

4.1The Applicant is alleged to be an active participant in kidneytransplant racket. He is the distant brother-in-law (cousin of the wife) of themastermind, Sandeep Arya. He was arrested alongside Sandeep Arya fromthe same hotel in Goa. The Applicant willingly allowed his bank account tobe used for receiving illicit funds from the husband of the Complainant, inlieu of commission, thereby facilitating the illegal transaction.

4.2 direct monetary transaction of ₹7,00,000/- was made by the deceased (Complainant’s husband) into the Applicant’s IDFC Bank accounton 16[th]December, 2023. In addition, the chargesheet records multiplefinancial transactions between the Applicant and other co-accused persons,pointing to his complicity in the operation of the syndicate.

4.3Scientific evidence in the form of CDR further corroborates theApplicant’s close and frequent contact with several co-accused. Thiscommunication pattern, the Prosecution contends, is indicative of theApplicant’s active involvement in the coordination and execution of theillegal organ transplantation scheme.

4.4Furthermore, from the Applicant’s possession, certificate and marksheet in his name, issued by the Registrar Counsel of Paramedical, Mohali,Punjab, pertaining to two-year diploma in Dialysis Technician wererecovered from his possession. Upon verification with the relevantauthorities, these documents were found to be fake.

5.The Court has duly considered the aforementioned contentions. TheApplicant has been in custody since 28[th]June, 2024. The chargesheet hasbeen filed, and as such, the Applicant’s continued detention for investigativepurposes is no longer necessary. In the most recent status report filed by the

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

Prosecution, it is noted that eight patients or prospective recipients wereexamined during the course of investigation. However, none of them havenamed or levelled any allegation against the present Applicant. The saidstatus report, handed over across the board, is taken on record.

6.The most serious allegation against the Applicant is the receipt of₹7,00,000/- into his bank account from the complainant’s husband. While this transaction, on the face of it, raises suspicion, the explanation furnishedby the Applicant, that the account was operated by co-accused SandeepArya, relative, who had secured employment for the Applicant, is notimplausible and cannot be dismissed outright at this stage. Notably, there isno accompanying evidence indicating that the Applicant himself interactedwith the Complainant’s family, made any representations, or played anactive role in the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, none of the donors orrecipients, including those who were examined during the investigation,have attributed any role to the Applicant. Whether this transaction was aknowing participation or passive conduit will require closer scrutinyduring trial. However, for the limited purpose of bail, and in the absence ofany other substantive material, this solitary transaction, without more,cannot be treated as conclusive proof of complicity.

7.As for the recovery of forged documents from the Applicant’spossession, it is not in dispute that these consist of his personal marksheets,which, as per the Prosecution’s own admission, bear no nexus to the allegedorgan transplant racket. There is no allegation that these documents wereused in furtherance of the conspiracy or for facilitating any unlawfultransplants. Further, two co-accused, namely Tej Prakash and PuneetKumar, allegedly involved in more overt roles, have already been enlarged

on bail,

8.The Applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is well-establishedthrough catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object ofgranting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought tobe achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at thetrial.[5]Accordingly, in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, theApplicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond fora sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a.The Applicant will not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court.

b.The Applicant shall provide permanent address to the Trial Court. TheApplicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IOregarding any change in his residential address.

c.The Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter istaken up for hearing.

d.The Applicant shall provide all mobile numbers to the concerned IO,which shall be kept in working condition at all times.

e.The Applicant shall not switch off his phone or change his mobilenumber without prior intimation to the concerned IO.

f.The Applicant will report to the concerned IO on the second andfourth Friday of every month, at 4:00 PM, and will not be kept waiting formore than an hour.

g.The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not

5 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses,or tamper with the evidence of the case.

9.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

10.Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are forthe purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

11.A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for informationand necessary compliance.

12.The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

APRIL 3, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J