CRL.M.C./4552/2025 of VIKAS MADAN Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4552/2025, CRL.M.A. 19819-19820/2025VIKAS MADAN.....PetitionerVIKAS MADAN.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Harshith Pottangi, Ms. A. Arora,AdvocatesAdvocates

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for StateMr.AdityaDhawan,Ms.KiranDhawan, Advocates for R-2Through:Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for StateMr.AdityaDhawan,Ms.KiranDhawan, Advocates for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R14.07.2025

1.The present petition filed under Section 483(3) of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](Corresponding to Section 439(2) of thenCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973[2]) for cancellation of bail granted to Col.Vedvrat Vaidya (Respondent No. 2) by the Court of MetropolitanMagistrate, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by order dated 18[th]May, 2024[3], in the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 2354/2014 dated12[th]November, 2014, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860[4]at P.S. Shakar Pur, Delhi. chargesheet quaRespondent No. 2, registered under Sections 420, 406, 448, 380, 506, 120B

1 “BNSS”

2 “CrPC”

3 “impugned order”

4 “IPC”

and 34 of IPC, had been filed on 3[rd]November, 2023.

2.Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order isunreasoned and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is contended that the TrialCourt ought to have examined the role of Respondent No. 2 in greater detail.According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 neither cooperated with theinvestigation nor responded to specific queries raised by the InvestigatingOfficer regarding the money trail and other documents.

3.It is noted that the aforesaid FIR, registered on 12[th]November, 2014,against Respondent No. 2, pertains to collaboration agreement dated 7[th]February, 2008, executed between the Complainant and the co-accused,Bharat Vaidya. As per the prosecution, Respondent No. 2 was called upon tojoin the investigation, to which he complied. Subsequently, upon conclusionof the investigation on 3[rd]November, 2023, nearly decade later, achargesheet was filed without effecting arrest of Respondent No. 2. Whenthe Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued summons,Respondent No. 2 appeared before Trial Court and applied for bail, whichwas granted.

4.Now that the investigation is complete and the chargesheet has beenfiled, proceedings have commenced on that basis and thus, in the opinion ofthe Court, taking Respondent No. 2 into judicial custody at this stage wouldserve no useful purpose. Respondent No. 2 has already furnished bail bondand has been appearing before the Court. The purpose of granting bail, ashas been established through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court, isneither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by

bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.[5]It mustalso be noted that that the Sessions Court also considered the facts of thecase and found no reason for taking Respondent No. 2 into judicial custody.5.In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to entertain thepresent petition.

6.Dismissed along with pending applications.

JULY 14, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J

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.