[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Jayanta Ghosh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 May, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1709/2024
JAYANTA GHOSH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw,
Mr. Mohd. Ashaab, Mr. Karan Dhalla
and Ms. Somaya Gupta, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastva, APP for the
State with Inspector Kuldeep
Bhoriya, EOW.
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue Department
with Mr. Gagan Vaswani, Advocate
for customs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 02.05.2025
By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks regular
bail in case FIR No. 77/2023 dated 14.10.2023 registered under
sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 („IPC‟) at P.S.: Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. Consequent
upon completion of investigation, offences under sections 411/201
IPC have been added vide chargesheet dated 12.01.2024.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 16.10.2024. Status Reports dated
07.12.2024 and 22.01.2025 have been filed by the State. Nominal
Roll dated 05.12.2024 has been received from the concerned Jail
Superintendent.
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
3. Written synopses have been filed on behalf of the petitioner and the
State.
4. Pursuant to intimation issued vide order dated 16.10.2024, Mr. Satish
Aggarwala, learned senior standing counsel has also entered
appearance on behalf of the complainant/Deputy Commissioner, New
Customs House, Delhi.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Briefly, it is the case of the prosecution that petitioner herein, Jayanta
Ghosh, who was formerly engaged as a clearing agent with the
Customs Department has defrauded the Government Exchequer to the
tune of about Rs. 60 crores since 2018 in connivance and conspiracy
with co-accused persons which primarily include one Vijay Singh, a
former data entry operator who worked with the Customs Department
and one Deepesh Chamoli, who was the Senior Manager at Punjab
National Bank, Sansad Marg Branch, New Delhi.
6. The Customs Department manually sanctions the refund of custom
duties, interest, etc. on a case-to-case basis and once a refund is
sanctioned, the Department generates a forwarding letter, a scroll of
refund orders alongwith bank details and a cheque of the amount of
refund is issued in the name of Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
7. The alleged modus operandi claimed to be employed by the accused
persons involves the forgery of various official documents, including
stamps and signatures of customs officials, scrolls, forwarding letters
and cheques. These forged documents would in-turn be used to show
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
bogus entities as beneficiaries eligible for customs duty refund in
order to misappropriate funds lying unclaimed with the Customs
Department.
8. In the present case, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
persons have forged the forwarding letter, scroll and cheque dated
12.09.2023 which were issued by the Customs Department for a sum
of Rs. 9,878/- in favour of one M/s. RKG Enterprises; but by forging
the documents, including the cheque, the accused persons had a sum
of Rs. 9,87,85,008/- disbursed against those documents into 03 bank
accounts held under names of bogus companies/entities, of which a
significant amount i.e.,Rs. 6.33 crores has been traced to the bank
accounts of the petitioner.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
9. Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal submits that the petitioner is a 47-year-old
Cinematographer and Producer, with no criminal antecedents, and is a
person with deep roots in society since he resides with his family
comprising his wife, a 19-year-old daughter and a 13-year-old son.
10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted,
that the case against the petitioner is that he, in conspiracy with the
co-accused persons, had forged the refund scroll and cheque issued by
the Customs Department in order to cheat the department of the sum
of about Rs.10 crores.
11. However, Mr. Aggarwal has argued, that no forged material has been
recovered from the petitioner; and even the CFSL Report dated
30.01.2024 filed alongwith the supplementary chargesheet does not
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
express any opinion indicating the petitioner‟s involvement in the
alleged forgery, despite multiple specimen signatures of the petitioner
having been sent to them for matching with the signatures/writing on
the alleged forged scroll and cheque.
12. It has been argued, that though no recovery of any forged material has
been made from the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is attempting
to explain the lack of any recovery on the basis of an alleged
disclosure statement made by the petitioner, where he is supposed to
have said that the incriminating material was thrown into the Yamuna
River.
13. Learned senior counsel has pointed-out that it is now the settled
position of law, that an arrest made in violation of section 50 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, namely where the grounds of arrest are not
served upon an arrestee in writing, is an unlawful arrest and requires
to be set-aside. To this effect, Mr. Aggarwal has placed reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State
(NCT of Delhi).1
14. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s Arrest Memo dated 17.10.2023, a
copy of which has been annexed with the petition, clearly shows that
no grounds of arrest were served upon him since the arrest memo only
contains formal reasons for the petitioner‟s arrest, which is not
adequate compliance with the mandate of Prabir Purkayastha.
1
(2024) 8 SCC 254
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
15. It has further been submitted that the prosecution is placing reliance
on the statements of 02 stamp vendors to allege that the petitioner had
procured the fake stamps from them; however inexplicably, neither of
the said stamp vendors has been cited as a prosecution witnesses in
the chargesheet; and only their cyclostyled and identical statements
have been relied upon, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of
such statements.
16. Learned senior counsel has submitted that insofar as the petitioner is
concerned, investigation is complete; chargesheet dated 21.01.2024
has been filed; and though 49 witnesses have been cited by the
prosecution, even charges are yet to be framed in the matter. It has
been pointed-out that in the meantime, the petitioner, who was
arrested on 17.10.2023, has spent about 01 year and 06 months in
judicial custody as an undertrial as of date.
17. In addition to the above-mentioned circumstances, learned senior
counsel has placed emphasis on the fact that the petitioner is suffering
from pulmonary and cardiac ailments, which have worsened during
the period of his incarceration, due to the lack of care and medical
facilities available in jail. In this regard, Mr. Aggarwal places reliance
on Medical Status Report dated 17.11.2024 filed by the Medical
Officer-in-Charge, Central Jail-04, Tihar, before the learned trial
court, which confirms that position.
18. Furthermore, claiming parity with the other co-accused persons,
learned senior counsel has argued, that there are 07 accused persons
in the matter and though some accused persons are stated to be
absconding, 03 co-accused persons have already been released on
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
regular bail and 01 co-accused person has been released on interim
bail on medical grounds, details whereof are as follows :
Period of
S. No. Accused Status
custodyRegular bail granted vide order dated
Pooja Ghosh 20.04.2024 by the learned Chief 06 months
1. Accused No. 2 Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House and 03 days
Court, New Delhi.
Prasenjit Regular bail granted vide order dated
09 months
2. Mitra 08.08.2024 by this court in BAIL
and 21 days
Accused No. 3 APPLN. No. 1722/2024.
Regular bail granted vide order dated
Deepesh
09.02.2024 by the learned Chief 03 months
3. Chamoli
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House and 20 days
Accused No. 5
Court, New Delhi.
Interim Bail granted vide order dated
18.11.2024 by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala 11 months
House Court, New Delhi; and extended and 06 days
Amit Agrawal by this court vide order dated [as of
4. Accused No. 7 06.12.2024 made in BAIL APPLN. 22.11.2024];
No. 4475/2024, whereafter the presently in
petitioner was directed to surrender judicial
back to custody vide order dated custody.2
24.01.2025.
2
Amit Agrawal has since been granted regular bail by judgment dated 01.05.2025 in Bail Appln. No.
4475/2024 rendered by this Bench.
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
19. Lastly, learned senior counsel has submitted that the bank accounts of
the petitioner and other co-accused persons have already been frozen
and given the nature of the allegations, no purpose would be served
by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody any longer.
20. Accordingly, Mr. Aggarwal has argued that the petitioner deserves to
be released on regular bail.
STATE’S SUBMISSIONS
21. On the other hand, Mr. Tarang Srivastva, learned APP appearing for
the State has opposed grant of regular bail to the petitioner,
submitting that the petitioner is guilty of serious economic offences
and if one was not to restrict oneself to the present case, the petitioner
has been involved in defrauding the Customs Department to the tune
of Rs. 60 crores since 2018; and that, out of the cheated amount,
about Rs. 6.33 crores have been traced to the bank accounts of the
petitioner himself.
22. Learned APP has submitted, that the petitioner‟s CDRs show that he
was in constant communication with all other co-accused persons; and
that CCTV footage of the relevant dates i.e., 20.09.2023, 22.09.2023
and 27.09.2023 obtained from the Punjab National Bank, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi show the petitioner, Accused No. 4/Vijay Singh and
Accused No. 5/Deepesh Chamoli conspiring and preparing the forged
scroll, the cheque and the forwarding letter. Furthermore, Mr.
Srivastva has submitted that the CCTV footage also shows the
petitioner had given an iPhone-13 to Accused No. 5/Deepesh Chamoli
in lieu of his co-operation in the offence, which iPhone was also
recovered from the said co-accused person and was verified to be
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
registered in the name of the petitioner‟s proprietorship firm M/s. J.R.
Production House.
23. Additionally, Mr. Srivastva has also argued that the petitioner cannot
seek bail on the ground of parity as he is the main conspirator in the
matter, while the other co-accused persons only had limited roles, as
detailed in the subject FIR. In this regard, learned APP has submitted,
that Accused No. 2/Pooja Ghosh is the wife of the petitioner and was
admitted to regular bail primarily on the ground of her being a lady;
that Accused No.3/Prasanjit Mitra was the petitioner‟s lawyer at
whose instance the sum of Rs. 88.05 lacs was recovered; and Accused
No. 5/Deepesh Chamoli, who was working as Manager at the Punjab
National Bank, Sansad Marg Branch, was involved only in the last
transaction of the fraud.
24. Learned APP has submitted that it was the petitioner who was
responsible for orchestrating a very serious economic crime; and since
02 of the co-accused persons are still evading the police, it is highly
likely that the petitioner may tamper with evidence and/or flee from
justice, if admitted to regular bail.
25. In the circumstances, Mr. Srivastva has argued that the petitioner
should not be admitted to regular bail.
26. Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned senior standing counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant/Customs Department has adopted the
submissions made on behalf of the State; only to add that the
petitioner should not be released on regular bail since investigation in
the matter is at a preliminary stage and a substantial amount of the
defrauded money is yet to be recovered.
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
27. Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the
matter, the following factors weigh with this court at this stage :
27.1. Though as per the allegations in the chargesheet, the
prosecution case is that the petitioner was the main conspirator
who defrauded the Customs Department to the tune of about
Rs. 10 crores by forging a scroll and a cheque issued by the
department and by thereafter siphoning-off the money through
various bank accounts, the present position is that the sum
traced to the petitioner‟s bank accounts is about Rs. 6.33 crores
and those bank accounts already stand frozen;
27.2. Investigation qua the petitioner is complete; chargesheet dated
12.01.2024 has been filed against him, in which the prosecution
has cited 49 witnesses; but charges have not yet been framed
and trial is yet to begin. However, in the meantime, the
petitioner has suffered judicial custody for about 01 year and 06
months;
27.3. A perusal of the arrest memo issued to the petitioner shows,
that no grounds of arrest were served upon the petitioner in
writing; and the arrest memo merely recorded the reasons for
arrest, namely the formal and non-specific rationale as to why
the petitioner‟s arrest is required. This is a clear breach of the
mandate of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha;
27.4. Four of the co-accused persons, to whom varying roles have
been ascribed in the chargesheet, have already been admitted to
regular bail. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, other thanBAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
the amount of about Rs. 6.33 crores which was traced to the
petitioner‟s bank accounts, no other incriminating material
showing forgery of the documents relating to the Customs
Department has been recovered from the petitioner;
27.5. Furthermore, CFSL Report dated 30.01.2024 filed with the
supplementary chargesheet does not contain any finding as to
the petitioner‟s involvement in the offence of forgery;
27.6. The petitioner‟s nominal roll shows that his jail conduct has
been „satisfactory‟ and that he has had no other criminal
implications; and furthermore, the petitioner‟s medical status
report confirms that he suffers from various ailments, which
have required him to be treated repeatedly in the jail medical
facilities as well as at the DDU Hospital and Safdarjung
Hospital for higher level of medical care;
27.7. The nature of the offences alleged are such, that the evidence in
the matter is essentially documentary, which evidence has
already been collected by the Investigating Officer; and as a
result, there is little apprehension that the petitioner would be
able to tamper with that evidence; and
27.8. Lastly, it is now the settled position of law, that unless there are
compelling reasons to do so, an accused cannot be kept in
judicial custody endlessly only because he is facing trial. In the
opinion of this court, there is no basis to entertaining any
serious, demonstrable apprehension that the petitioner would
interfere with the course of justice by fleeing from trial; or by
intimidating witnesses; or by tampering with evidence. Since
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure; nor can it be
denied as a mark of disapproval for alleged unlawful conduct;
nor for giving to an undertrial a “taste of imprisonment as a
lesson”3, this court is unable to discern any compelling reason
to keep the petitioner in judicial custody any longer. As a
matter of fact, co-accused Amit Agrawal has since been
admitted to regular bail by this Bench vide judgment dated
01.05.2025 passed in Bail Appln. No. 4475/2024 titled „Amit
Agrawal versus State of NCT Delhi & Ors.‟, which judgment
carries a more detailed discussion on the foregoing aspects.
28. As a sequitur to the above, this court is persuaded to admit the
petitioner – Jayanta Ghosh s/o Arun Ghosh – to regular bail,
pending trial, subject to the following conditions :
28.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) with 02 sureties in the
like amount from family members, subject to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court;
28.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cell-
phone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any
time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and
switched-on at all times;
28.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to
the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country
without prior permission of the learned trial court;
3
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, para 23
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
28.4. The petitioner 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.
The petitioner 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;
28.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,
the petitioner shall promptly inform the Investigating Officer in
writing; and
28.6. In addition to the foregoing conditions, the petitioner shall not
open or close any bank account nor open or close any company
or other business entity, without giving to the Investigating
Officer a 30 days prior written notice; and would furnish to the
Investigating Officer the full particulars of any such action that
he may take.
29. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion
on the merits of the pending matter.
30. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
forthwith.
31. The petition stands disposed-of.
32. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
MAY 02, 2025
V.Rawat
BAIL APPLN. 3739/2024 Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 16:51:33
[ad_2]
Source link