Delhi High Court – Orders
Mohd. Athar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 18 August, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025
MOHD. ATHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Verma, Ms. Nayan Maggo,
Mr. Yuvraj Singh Advocate Mr. Yash
Arora, Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
State along with SI Shivam Sharma,
PS Preet Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 18.08.2025
1. The present petition filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (corresponding to Section
439 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular
bail in FIR No. 355/2024 dated 20th November, 2024, registered under
Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233 at P.S. Preet Vihar,
Delhi.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. Sonu (the Complainant), engaged in the scrap copper trade, alleges
that he came into contact with one Dinesh (later identified as Md. Athar, the
present Applicant), proprietor of “Ma Metals”, through India Mart regarding1
“BNSS”
2
“CrPC”
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 1 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
a proposed transaction for the purchase of five tons of copper wire. A
meeting was held at the Applicant’s office in Kale Ram Chamber on 14 th
November, 2024, attended by the Complainant, his business partners, Md.
Ahsan, and the Applicant. During the meeting, the Complainant and his
partners agreed to purchase five tons of copper wire. However, the
Applicant stated that he could not arrange the material on the same day and
undertook to supply it the following day.
2.2. On 15th November, 2024, the Applicant informed the Complainant
that the copper wire would be procured from a company in Mandoli. Upon
visiting the stated address, the Complainant discovered that no such
company existed. When questioned the next day, the Applicant gave the
Complainant the contact number of one Ankit. As Ankit could not be
reached, the Applicant provided another contact, Mukesh, assuring that he
would arrange the supply. Mukesh informed the Complainant that a truck
carrying the goods was on its way. Upon the Complainant’s insistence that
the delivery be made directly from the warehouse, Mukesh, accompanied by
an associate named Paras, facilitated the loading of goods from a warehouse
owned by Ayyub in Mustafabad. After repeated delays, approximately 90%
of the agreed quantity of copper scrap was eventually loaded into a truck
hired by the Complainant in his presence and that of his business partners.
2.3. The Complainant allegedly handed over a cash payment of INR 40.79
lakhs to the Applicant at the Kale Ram Chamber office, after about 90% of
the material had been loaded. Following receipt of payment, Mukesh
assured that the goods could now be collected. However, warehouse owner
Ayyub refused to release the consignment, asserting that he had not received
3
“BNS”
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 2 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
any payment from the Applicant, Mukesh, or Paras.
2.4. The Complainant claims that subsequent attempts to contact the
Applicant failed, as his phone was switched off. It is further alleged that the
Applicant and Md. Ahsan absconded with the money in a Scorpio vehicle
bearing a forged temporary number plate ending in 8253F, under the pretext
of completing an RTGS transfer. Based on these allegations, the present FIR
was registered.
2.5. During investigation, police obtained the rent agreement for the Kale
Ram Chamber office. The documents identified one Imamul Haque as the
tenant. Upon being shown the Aadhaar card and photograph attached with
the agreement, the Complainant and his associates identified him as
“Dinesh,” i.e., the present Applicant.
2.6. CCTV footage from the vicinity of Kale Ram Chamber corroborated
the Complainant’s version to the extent that a Scorpio car with the stated
temporary number plate was seen parked there. Subsequent inquiries
revealed that the number plate was forged and that the vehicle was being
used by the Applicant.
2.7. Call Detail Records of the accused persons were analysed, following
which a raid was conducted. The Applicant and Md. Ahsan were taken into
custody on 27th November, 2024. Further investigation disclosed that the
real identity of “Dinesh @ Imamul Haque” was in fact Md. Athar.
2.8. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet has been filed
qua the Applicant under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 345(3), 61,
317(2) and 3(5) of BNS. Further, the matter is now listed before the Trial
Court in August, 2025 for framing of charge.
Contentions of the Applicant
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 3 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
3. Counsel for the Applicant makes the following submissions
requesting grant of bail:
3.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The
Complainant, along with his partners, has failed to produce any document,
such as purchase order, invoice, GST record, balance sheet, or financial
statement, to substantiate the alleged cash transaction of copper scrap.
3.2. The Applicant has been in custody since 27th November, 2024, merely
on the basis of uncorroborated allegations. No credible or cogent evidence
links him to the alleged offence, and his prolonged incarceration highlights
misuse of criminal law as a tool of harassment.
3.3. The prosecution’s story about a Scorpio with forged number plates is
merely an afterthought. The CCTV footage relied upon is from an unrelated
location and has no nexus to the alleged incident. The registered owner of
the said vehicle has no connection with the case. The alleged recovery of
another Scorpio and forged number plates suffers from serious infirmities, as
no videography was conducted, which is in violation of Section 105 of
BNSS, 2023 and other judicial mandates.
3.4. The Applicant is not a beneficiary of the alleged offence. No recovery
of money has been made from him, nor is any recovery pending at his
instance.
3.5. Without prejudice to the above, the offences alleged carry a maximum
punishment of seven years, hence the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar4 are squarely applicable. Further, the grounds of arrest were never
furnished to the Applicant or his family as mandated, rendering his arrest
unlawful.
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 4 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
3.6. It is also pertinent to note that the co-accused, Mohd. Ahsan, has
already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26th May, 2025, in
BAIL APPLN. 1528/2025. The principle of parity, therefore, entitles the
present Applicant to the same relief.
3.7. The investigation stands concluded and the chargesheet has been
filed. In such circumstances, it is urged that his continued detention serves
no purpose, and amounts to punitive pre-trial imprisonment, in violation of
his night to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the State
4. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State, on the other hand opposes
the bail application and submits as follows:
4.1. The role of the present Applicant is far graver than that of the co-
accused, Md. Ahsan, who has been granted bail. Unlike the co-accused, the
Applicant is the principal perpetrator of the alleged offence.
4.2. It is argued that the Applicant misled the Complainant by assuming a
fake identity and thereby caused unlawful gain. He allegedly executed a
forged rent agreement for the office premises by using a false Aadhaar card,
on which his photograph was pasted to impersonate one Imamul Haque. In
this manner, the Applicant not only created a false identity but also used it to
set up the office where the conspiracy was hatched.
4.3. The Applicant was also responsible for fabricating a false number
plate, which was later recovered from co-accused Mohd. Ahsan. At the joint
pointing-out of the accused persons, a total of INR 9 lakhs was recovered,
further demonstrating the Applicant’s active role in the alleged conspiracy.
4.4. It is further submitted that the Call Detail Records (CDR) place the
4
(2014) 8 SCC 273.
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 5 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
Applicant at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. Moreover, while
the Complainant’s supplementary statement only confirmed the presence of
the co-accused Md. Ahsan, it squarely attributes the central role of
impersonation and inducement to the present Applicant.
4.5. The Applicant’s role is multifaceted as he masqueraded as “Dinesh”
to dupe the Complainant, absconded with the money under the pretext of
making an RTGS transfer, and forged multiple documents, including the
Aadhaar card, rent agreement, and number plate, to give effect to the
fraudulent scheme. Thus, unlike the co-accused, the Applicant was not
merely present but was instrumental in conceiving and executing the entire
plan.
4.6. The mere filing of a chargesheet does not constitute a material change
in circumstances. Given the gravity of his role and the elaborate acts of
impersonation and fabrication attributed to him, there is every likelihood
that the Applicant will evade the process of law if released on bail.
Analysis
5. The court has considered the aforenoted contentions. It is a well
settled principle of law that while considering a bail application, the Court
must keep in mind several factors relating to the case, such as – whether
there is any prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused has
committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of
potential punishment, risk of the accused absconding or fleeing if released
on bail, the likelihood of the offence being repeated, etc.5 At the same time,
the Court is not expected to delve into a detailed appreciation of the
5
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 6 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
evidence, lest the bail proceedings acquire the character of a mini-trial.6
6. The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant, by assuming a false
identity, induced the Complainant to part with a substantial amount of
money under the pretext of supplying copper scrap. It is alleged that forged
documents such as a rent agreement, Aadhaar card, and number plate were
used to facilitate the fraudulent transaction. However, the fact remains that
the alleged transaction was entirely in cash, and no contemporaneous
documentary evidence such as a purchase order, invoice, GST entry, or bank
trail has been produced by the Complainant to substantiate the payment of
INR 40.79 lakhs. The prosecution’s case thus rests primarily on oral
allegations of the Complainant and his associates.
7. The alleged recovery of forged documents and the Scorpio vehicle
from the joint possession of the Applicant and the co-accused, are certainly
issues that merit scrutiny. However, the evidentiary value of these materials,
including the CDR, must be tested during the course of trial and, at this
stage, cannot be conclusively weighed against the Applicant.
8. It is also noted that the co-accused, Md. Ahsan, has already been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26th May, 2025. While the role
attributed to the present Applicant is projected as graver, the principle of
parity cannot be brushed aside. Both accused are alleged to have acted in
concert, and in the absence of any direct recovery from the Applicant, a
distinction in their treatment for the purpose of bail does not appear justified.
9. The Applicant has been in custody since 27th November, 2024. As per
the nominal roll as on 11th August, 2025, the Applicant has undergone 8
6
See also: Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar & Anr., (2022) 4 SCC 497 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia, (2020) 2 SCC 118.
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 7 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
months and 10 days of custody. It is also relevant to note that the maximum
punishment prescribed for the offences alleged in the present case is seven
years, and the Applicant has no criminal antecedents. In these
circumstances, the continued incarceration, despite conclusion of
investigation, is no longer warranted.
10. It is a settled law, through a consistent line of Supreme Court
decisions, 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 of
the accused person at the trial7. With the investigation complete and the
chargesheet been filed, the absence of any criminal antecedents, on grounds
of parity with the co-accused, and the maximum punishment for the alleged
offences prescribed being seven years, the Court is of the prima facie view
that continued incarceration of the Applicant would serve no meaningful
purpose and would run contrary to the principles enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India. The prosecution’s apprehension about the
Applicant’s risk of absconding can be mitigated by setting suitable
conditions that guarantee his presence at trial.
11. Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances, the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of
INR 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court/ Duty MM/ Jail Superintendent, on the following
conditions:
a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
7
See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2022) 2 SCC 51.
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 8 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;
e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;
f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
12. 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.
13. 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 should also not be taken as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
14. The bail application is allowed and disposed of in the aforenoted
terms.
15. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
necessary information and compliance.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 18, 2025/MK
BAIL APPLN. 2527/2025 Page 9 of 9
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 20/08/2025 at 21:45:30
[ad_1]
Source link