Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Latest:
delhihighcourt

DEEPAK KUMAR SONY vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08th January, 2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 3802/2022

DEEPAK KUMAR SONY ….. Applicant
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Abhay Pandey and Ms. Shreya, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Utkarsh, APP with Inspector Surender Singh, PS R. K. Puram.

CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 0154/2022, dated 09.05.2022 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, under Sections 406/419/420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint made by Mr. Sandeep Kumar on 07.05.2022. It was alleged that the complainant along with his friend Mr. Jaswant Singh got in contact with the applicant for the purpose of obtaining Visa for Serbia. It is alleged that the applicant met the complaint and his friend at Rajiv Chowk Metro Station on 06.05.2022 when the applicant introduced himself as Ankit Kumar. It is alleged that the complainant claimed to be working as an Assistant Coordinator in Bureau of Immigration and also showed ID indicating that the applicant’s name was Ankit Kumar working with Bureau of Immigrations. The applicant took the Passports of the complainant and his friend to facilitate Visa. The applicant on 07.05.2022 met with the complainant and his friend at 10.00 a.m. at FRRO Office at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. On demand made by the applicant, complainant and his friend gave 1500 Euros each to the applicant for the purpose of Visa application.
3. It is alleged that the complainant and his friend thereafter, kept waiting outside the FRRO Office, but the applicant did not come back and was later seen running away from the backside of the FRRO Office. Complainant on inquiry, came to know that no person by the name of Ankit Kumar was working in the FRRO Office. A complaint on the same day was filed at the Police Station R.K. Puram and the FIR thereafter was registered on 09.05.2022.
4. It is alleged that on 10.05.2022, the applicant was apprehended from IGI Airport and 2400 Euros were recovered from the personal search of the applicant.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation in the present case is already complete and the chargesheet has already been filed. He submitted that the applicant is no longer required in custody and the trial is likely to take long period of time since not even the charges are framed as yet. He further submits that the FIR was registered on a misunderstanding and the complainant and his friend have already settled their disputes with the applicant. The complainants have also agreed that they will cooperate in petition to be filed for quashing of the FIR. He further submits that raid was conducted on the premises of the applicant without any search warrant. He lastly submits that the applicant is a young man aged 23 years and has already spent more than 19 months in the custody.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. He submitted that the laptop ‘make Dell’ was recovered from the search conducted at the premises of the applicant and the fake ID was found in the laptop. He further submitted that the inquiry from the Bureau of Immigrations has revealed that the rank of Assistant Coordinator does not exist in the Bureau of Immigrations. The ID cards in respect to Ankit Kumar and Rohit Kumar (which were found in the laptop) neither pertain to the Bureau of Immigrations nor were issued by them.
7. He submitted that the maximum punishment for an offence under Section 467 IPC is imprisonment for life.

Analysis
8. It is not in doubt that using a forged identity card, especially when it is purported to have been issued by the Government Department, is a serious offence.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged fake identity cards are alleged to have been recovered from the laptop which was seized from the raid conducted at the premises of the applicant. The raid was conducted without following the provisions of Cr.P.C, inasmuch no warrant was issued and the raiding party was not accompanied with the independent witnesses.
10. Whether any forged identity card was used by the applicant for the purpose of cheating the complainant is a matter of trial. It is not disputed by the State that the complainants and the applicant have agreed to settle their disputes and have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.05.2022, pursuant to which certain amounts have also been paid by the applicant to the complainants. The complainants have also agreed to cooperate in case the applicant files a petition for quashing of the FIR. It is also not denied that the investigation in the present case has already been completed and the chargesheet has already been filed.
11. It is not contended by the State that the release of the applicant on bail would hamper further investigation. Even though it is contended that the applicant was apprehended from IGI Airport on 10.05.2022, the same does not, at this stage, appears to be believable. It is specifically pleaded by the applicant that since he had already settled with the complainants, he had gone to the Police Station along with the complainants. No material has been shown by the State to show that the applicant was apprehended from the IGI Airport or that he was trying to flee. In any case any apprehension that the applicant / accused is a flight risk, can be taken care of by putting appropriate conditions.
12. Thus, considering the fact that the applicant has already spent a period of more than 19 months in custody; the chargesheet has already been filed and the investigation is complete; the complainants and the applicant have settled their disputes and the complainants have also received certain amounts pursuant to the settlement and have agreed to cooperate with the quashing of the FIR; and the fact that the applicant is of a young age of 23 years, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present application. I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Without commenting further on merits of the case, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ?50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions:
a. He shall not leave the city without informing the concerned IO/SHO;
b. He shall under no circumstance leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court;
c. He shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed;
d. He shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;
14. 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 way of seeking cancellation of bail.
15. 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.
16. The bail application is allowed in the aforementioned terms.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JANUARY 08, 2024
“SK”

BAIL APPLN. 3802/2022 Page 1 of 2