BAIL APPLN./2715/2025 of VINEET JHAVAR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DLEHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025, CRL.M.A. 24435-24436/2025VINEET JHAVAR.....PetitionerThrough:Ms.Shobha Gupta,Mr.ManasviNegi, Ms. Sanskriti Shakuntla Gupta,Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Ms. AkshitaMishra, Ms. Ojasvi and Ms. Dharini,Advocates.VINEET JHAVAR.....PetitionerThrough:Ms.Shobha Gupta,Mr.ManasviNegi, Ms. Sanskriti Shakuntla Gupta,Ms. Simranjeet Kaur, Ms. AkshitaMishra, Ms. Ojasvi and Ms. Dharini,Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DLEHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R26.08.2025

1.The present bail application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising fromFIR No. 129/2022 registered under Section 420, 384, 468 and 471 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860[3]at P.S. Special Cell. The Applicant has also beenimplicated in two other criminal cases, namely FIR No. 9/2022 registered atCyber Police Station, North East District, and FIR No. 39/2022 registered atCyber Police Station, East District. In both cases, he was granted bail by

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025

orders dated 18[th]January, 2023, passed by the CMM, North East District,Karkardooma Courts, and 30[th]January, 2023, passed by the CMM, East,Karkardooma Courts, respectively. The present application is his fourthattempt to secure bail in FIR No. 129/2022 before this Court. In this case,the Applicant was arraigned through supplementary chargesheet underSections 420, 384, 385, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. However, charges havesince been framed only under Sections 384 and 420 read with Section 120BIPC.

2.Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1.The present case arises out of large-scale organized cyber-crimeinvolving fraudulent loan mobile apps and portals, illegal data harvestingand extortion of borrowers by recovery agents through threats, blackmailand circulation of morphed images.

2.2.On 13[th]January 2022, Mr. Rohan Kapoor lodged complaintregarding fraudulent app Express Loan. He received an SMS offering a“COVID vaccine loan”. He clicked the link in the message, which led to theapp being downloaded on his phone. The app sought access to contacts andgallery, and he shared Aadhaar and PAN details believing it genuine.Shortly after, INR 4,200/- was credited to his account. Four days later, hebegan receiving extortionist WhatsApp calls demanding thrice the amount,coupled with threats to circulate morphed obscene images, some of whichwere actually sent to his acquaintances.

2.3.Despite having repaid the said loan amount, the Complainantcontinued to receive threats and extortion calls. During inquiry, it wasfurther discovered that around 45 similar complaints had been lodgedagainst the Express Loan mobile application on the National Cyber Crime

BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025

Reporting Portal.

2.4.The investigation reveals that the Applicant, Vineet Jhavar, operatedmultiple bank accounts which were directly used for receiving and layeringof proceeds of crime. Analysis of his bank statements discloses transactionsrunning into crores of rupees. The forensic audit indicates that amountsaggregating approximately INR 1,40,81,913/- were routed through accountsassociated with the Applicant and linked entities.

2.5.The Applicant opened at least five accounts in his name and in thenames of entities such as Pioneer Entertainment, Shiv Tours & Travels,Filmiz Media, and Empire Trading, all of which were used to receive largesums from defrauded victims or co-accused.

2.6.During the course of investigation, another complainant, AdityaSharma alleged that he was extorted of more than INR 25,00,000/- by thesyndicate by sending morphed images to his relatives. Scrutiny of his bankstatements revealed direct transfers intoaccounts belongingto theApplicant. These accounts were used for routing extorted amounts receivedfrom victims of fraudulent “Express Loan” and similar mobile applications.

2.7.The Applicant has failed to give satisfactory explanations regardingthe transactions, the source of funds, or the identity of co-accused involved.He has not disclosed the names of masterminds of the syndicate and hasbeen evasive during custodial interrogation. His role is not limited to passivereceipt of money but extends to active handling and diversion of proceeds ofcrime.

2.8.The Applicant is beneficiary of this illegal enterprise and one of thecrucial links in laundering of illicit funds, as he allowed his accounts to beused for layering and integration of fraudulent gains.

BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025

3.Counsel for the Petitioner urges the following grounds in support ofthe present application:

3.1.The investigation qua the Applicant stands concluded. The case restson documentary evidence, which has already been collected and filed alongwith the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet. The Applicant’sfurther custody is therefore not required.

3.2.With the filing of the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, thepossibility of the Applicant tampering with evidence or influencingwitnesses no longer remains ground to deny bail.

3.3.The Applicant has remained in judicial custody for approximately 2years and 10 months as an under-trial, for offences carrying maximumpunishment of 7 years’ imprisonment.

3.4.No incriminating material or proceeds of crime recovered from theApplicant.

3.5.The Applicant bears clean record and does not have any priorcriminal antecedents. There is nothing to suggest that he poses threat tosociety or that his release on bail would endanger the fair conduct of trial.

3.6.All the other co-accused mentioned in the chargesheet have beenreleased on bail.

4.The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions and perused therecord. The investigation in the matter stands concluded and chargesheethas already been filed. The offences with which the Applicant is charged areunder Sections 384 and 420 of the IPC. While the maximum punishmentprescribed under Section 384 IPC is three years, the offence under Section420 IPC carries maximum punishment of seven years. As per the nominalroll, the Applicant has remained in custody for 2 years 10 months and 18

BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025

days.

5.It is further noted that several co-accused in the same case havealready been enlarged on bail and the principle of parity would also weigh infavour of the present Applicant. Moreover, the chargesheet cites as many as36 witnesses, which indicates that the trial is likely to take considerable timefor its conclusion.

6.It is well established through catena of judgments by the SupremeCourt that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative.The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance ofthe accused person at the trial.[4]

7.Therefore, having regard to the totality of circumstances, includingthe completion of investigation, the period of incarceration alreadyundergone by the Applicant, the maximum sentence prescribed, the bailgranted to co-accused, and the likelihood of delay in the trial, this Court is ofthe view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8.The Applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on bail onfurnishing personal bond for sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on thefollowing conditions:

a.The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as andwhen directed by the concerned IO.

b.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

4 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.

BAIL APPLN. 2715/2025

c.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the Trial Court;

d.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

e.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

f.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.

g.The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first and fourthMonday of every month;

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.It is clarified that 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.The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

AUGUST 26, 2025/MK

SANJEEV NARULA, J