BAIL APPLN./2341/2025 of PURUSHOTTAM MISHRA Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2341/2025

PURUSHOTTAM MISHRA

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Jatin Rajput, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Mr. Varun Panwar and Mr. Vinamr, Advocates. Jha, Mr. Varun Panwar and Mr. Vinamr, Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI

Through:

.....Respondent

Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP. SI Sunil Kumar, PS: Kapashera. SI Sunil Kumar, PS: Kapashera.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R R

18.09.2025

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1] (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 111/2025 dated 24[th] February, 2025 registered under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3] at P.S. Kapashera. Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1] (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 111/2025 dated 24[th] February, 2025 registered under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3] at P.S. Kapashera.

2. Upon hearing brief submissions of counsel, this Court, by order dated

4[th] July, 2025, directed the Applicant to join investigation. In compliance, the Applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer, which fact has been confirmed by Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State. the Applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer, which fact has been confirmed by Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State.

3. While considering the matter on 4[th] July, 2025, the Court had also

1 “BNSS” 2 “CrPC”

BAIL APPLN. 2341/2025 Page 1 of 3

recorded certain relevant aspects. It was observed that the transactions alleged between the Complainant and the Applicant date back to the year 2017, whereas the FIR in question was lodged only on 24[th] February, 2025. It was further noted that two other FIRs, containing substantially similar allegations, had also been registered against the Applicant on the very same date, though at the instance of different complainants, and those too pertain to transactions of the year 2017. In respect of those FIRs, interim protection had already been granted to the Applicant by separate orders dated 1[st] July, 2025 in BAIL APPLN. 2271/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 2272/2025.

4. At this stage, Mr. Mehla submits that should any further presence of the Applicant be required during the course of investigation, notice shall be served to Petitioner.

5. It may be pertinent to recall the settled principle reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again that that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial[4]. Bearing the said position in mind, coupled with the circumstances already noted above, and further taking into account that coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted pre-arrest bail to the Applicant in BAIL APPLN. 2271/2025 vide order dated 20[th] August, 2025, the present bail application stands allowed. The Applicant, in the event of arrest, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond for sum of INR 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the following conditions:

The Applicant shall join investigation, as and when called by the

3 “IPC”

4 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

BAIL APPLN. 2341/2025 Page 2 of 3

Investigating Officer and shall co-operate during the investigations.

(ii) The Applicant shall furnish his phone number to the Investigating Officer on which he may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times.

(iii). The Applicant shall not leave the boundaries of the country without informing the IO/SHO concerned;

(iv) The Applicant shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case.

(v) The Applicant shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial.

6. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for

the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

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

SEPTEMBER 18, 2025

d.negi

SANJEEV NARULA, J

Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

BAIL APPLN. 2341/2025 Page 3 of 3

This is digitally signed order.