Delhi High Court – Orders
Jagdish Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1131/2026 & CRL.M.A. 8557/2026
JAGDISH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Chitranjan
Tyagi, Mr. Kunal Khanna, Ms. Sonia
Dhariwal, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.
9
+ BAIL APPLN. 1187/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 610/2026
NEERAJ SOOD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 20.07.2026
1. The applicants by way of the present applications, seek grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.132/2022 dated 03.09.2022
registered at the Economic Offences Wing for the offences punishable under
Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
[“IPC“].
2. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint lodged by M/s
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
HeroFinCorp. Ltd. [“HFCL”], a Non-Banking Financial Company, alleging
commission of financial irregularities and misappropriation of loan amounts
by its Direct Selling Agent [“DSA”], namely M/s R.M. Automobiles, a
partnership firm.
3. According to the prosecution, an amount of approximately Rs.8.16
crores, out of the total amount disbursed by HFCL to the said DSA, was
allegedly misappropriated by not liquidating the previous loans of borrowers
and by failing to transfer the sanctioned loan amounts to the concerned
customers.
4. The applicant Jagdish Sharma claims to have been working as an
employee of the complainant company and submits that his duties were
confined to liaison and coordination with the DSA and uploading documents
on the internal portal of the complainant company. It is his case that the
verification of documents, appraisal of loan proposals and disbursal of funds
were undertaken by different departments of HFCL and that he had no role
in the alleged conspiracy or diversion of funds.
5. Further, the second applicant, Neeraj Sood, submits that he is the
brother-in-law of the principal accused Rajiv Grover and that the financial
transactions relied upon by the prosecution were merely private monetary
dealings having no nexus with the alleged misappropriation of the
complainant’s funds.
6. It may be noted that both the applicants assert that they were neither
named in the FIR nor attributed any specific role therein.
7. This Court, vide orders dated 20.03.2026 and 25.03.2026 passed in
Bail Application No.1131/2026 and Bail Application No.1187/2026, while
issuing notice, directed that no coercive steps be taken against the
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
applicants, subject to their joining the investigation as and when called upon
by the Investigating Officer [“IO”] and extending full cooperation during
the course of investigation.
8. During the pendency of the present applications, status reports and
objections have been filed by the State as well as by the complainant. It
remains undisputed that, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this
Court, both the applicants joined the investigation as and when required by
the IO. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that they have
cooperated throughout the investigation and undertake to continue extending
full cooperation throughout the course of the proceedings.
9. The applications are, however, opposed by the State as well as the
complainant. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for
the complainant, while placing reliance upon the status reports filed during
the course of investigation, submit that sufficient material has surfaced
indicating the involvement of both the applicants in the alleged commission
of offences and that their custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective
and complete investigation. It is, therefore, contended that the applicants are
not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
10. It is further alleged that in September, 2021, upon receipt of several
complaints from borrowers, HFCL conducted an internal inquiry, which
revealed that an amount of approximately Rs.8,16,36,363/- had been
misappropriated by M/s R.M. Automobiles by neither liquidating the
previous loans of the borrowers nor transferring the sanctioned loan amounts
to their respective accounts. The investigation further reveals that M/s R.M.
Automobiles, had received funds from HFCL in respect of 163 borrowers.
Although documents and cheques were allegedly collected from the
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
borrowers for processing the loans, the sanctioned amounts were not
credited to their accounts and, in several instances, the borrowers continued
to bear the liability of repayment. It is on the basis of the aforesaid
allegations that the present FIR came to be registered and investigation
commenced. It is also alleged that, despite the loan amounts not being
credited to the borrowers, EMIs were deducted in several cases against the
proposed loans.
11. I have heard the submission made on behalf of both the parties and
have perused the record.
12. The role of the accused Jagdish Sharma has been assigned as under:
a) He is an employee of the complainant company, M/s Hero Fincorp,
and was entrusted with the responsibility of liaison work,
coordination, and handling all documentation related to RM
Automobiles.
b) During the investigation, it has been found that he misused his
position and facilitated the fraudulent activities by failing to report
discrepancies and by actively assisting the main accused Rajiv
Grover in processing and enabling the fraudulent transactions.
c) That he was in regular contact with Sanjay Jain, the accountant of
RM Automobiles. Sanjay Jain disclosed that Jagdish Sharma
frequently visited the RM Automobiles office and used to interfere
in the functioning and internal matters of the firm.
d) The staff responsible for borrower verification was also working
under his supervision. Evidence indicates that the fraud was
facilitated through the misuse of this authority and control.
e) He used to have funds transferred into the accounts of employees
of RM Automobiles, which were subsequently misappropriated for
personal gain. This clearly establishes his collusion in the
diversion of funds.
13. It is pertinent to note that this Court, vide order dated 20.03.2026
passed in Bail Application No. 1131/2026, while issuing notice in the
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
present application, recorded the clarification made by the learned APP for
the State that the person namely “Jagdish Sharma”, whose account
maintained with Yes Bank was stated to have received certain amounts
during the course of investigation, had not been found to be the present
applicant. It was further recorded that the same clarification had also been
made before the Sessions Court at the time of hearing of the applicant’s
anticipatory bail application.
14. Whereas, the application of Neeraj Sood is opposed on the following
grounds:
a) That the investigation has revealed sufficient oral and
documentary evidence to establish the involvement/complicity of
the accused Neeraj Sood in the commission of the above offences.
b) That the scrutiny of Aviral automobile’s account revealed that
Neeraj Sood received the misappropriated funds originating from
RM Automobiles and subsequently utilized those funds for his
personal benefit.
c) That the adequate evidence against the accused is already on
record. The bank account statements clearly demonstrate that he
diverted funds from RM Automobiles to his personal and his firm
accounts
d) That accused Rajiv Grover was evasive and avoided his presence,
failing to join the investigation despite the issuance of several
notices. On 23.09.2025, acting on secret information, he was
apprehended from beneath the office premises of accused Neeraj
Sood.
e) That the particulars of the concealed accounts have been duly
mentioned hereinabove. Further, subsequent to the arrest of the
main accused persons, Rajiv Grover and Mahesh Rawat, the
involvement of accused Neeraj Sood was revealed.
f) That during analysis of accused Neeraj Sood accounts, it revealed
that huge sum has been received in his accounts from HDFC Bank
A/c No. 50200029901572 of R.M. Automobiles.
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
g) That the involvement of the co-accused persons as well as accused
Neeraj Sood surfaced only during the course of investigation upon
analysis of material evidence. Accordingly, notices under Sections
91 and 41A CrPC. were issued at the appropriate stage.
h) That the investigation revealed that the firm M/s Aviral Automobile
was incorporated in collusion with accused Rajiv Grover.
i) The offences are serious in nature, affecting larger public and
financial interests, and the interrogation of other alleged
employees of M/s R.M. Automobiles and the complainant company
is currently ongoing.
j) The accused, Neeraj Sood, is not cooperating and is providing
evasive responses. If granted anticipatory bail, the accused may
feel emboldened and, though he may formally attend the
investigation, he is unlikely to cooperate in a meaningful manner,
thereby causing obstruction and hampering the fair and effective
progress of the investigation.
k) That the custodial interrogation of accused Neeraj Sood is
required to ensure disclosure of the concealed information, as he
has failed to furnish complete details of all accounts and has
deliberately withheld or suppressed material information.
l) Matter of record
m) The offences, which include forgery, fabrication, and the use of
forged documents, are serious and non-bailable, involving
criminal breach of trust and fraud. Such offences undermine public
confidence in financial and banking systems and cannot be treated
as mere civil disputes
n) That, despite specific directions of the Hon’ble Court to furnish
details of the documents sought by the IO, he failed to disclose
complete and material information and intentionally concealed the
Axis Bank account.
o) Need no response
p) That the conduct of the accused reflects non-cooperation and
concealment of material information.
q) The custodial interrogation is required.
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
r) As above.
15. The Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of
Punjab1, has held as under:
12. It is true that the functions of judiciary and the police are in a
sense complementary and not overlapping. An order of anticipatory
bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the
police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made
against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual
conditions incorporated in a direction issued under section 438(1) are
those recommended in Sub-section (2)(i) and (ii) which require the
applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not
tamper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. While
granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be
imposed under Section 438(2), so as to ensure an uninterrupted
investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in the event of
the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be
taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and
when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to
claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a
discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a
person released on bail.
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. Further, the Supreme Court, in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau
of Investigation2, while considering the principles governing grant of bail in
an economic offence, held as under:
22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration
while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation
and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the
nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat
to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the
likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of
1
(1980) 2 SCC 565
2
(2020) 13 SCC 337This 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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and
another (2001) 4 SCC 280). There is no hard and fast rule regarding
grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the
facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The
discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an
arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate
that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor
General that “flight risk” of economic offenders should be looked at as
a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely
because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The
same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to
deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other
offenders, if the person under consideration is otherwise entitled to bail
on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration
including as to “flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being
uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal
liberty is involved.
26. As discussed earlier, insofar as the “flight risk” and “tampering
with evidence” are concerned, the High Court held in favour of the
appellant by holding that the appellant is not a “flight risk” i.e. “no
possibility of his abscondence”. The High Court rightly held that by
issuing certain directions like “surrender of passport”, “issuance of
look out notice”, “flight risk” can be secured. So far as “tampering
with evidence” is concerned, the High Court rightly held that the
documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting
agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of
the appellant tampering with evidence.
17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that both the applicants have remained protected by the interim
orders passed by this Court and have joined the investigation as and when
called upon by the IO. It is also not disputed that they have continued to
cooperate with the investigation. Further, no material has been placed on
record to indicate that either applicant has attempted to evade the
investigation, tamper with evidence or influence any witness. Therefore, the
apprehension of the prosecution that the grant of anticipatory bail would
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
impede the investigation is unfounded.
18. This Court further finds that the allegations against the applicants
primarily arise out of financial transactions, banking records and other
documentary material, most of which has already been collected by the
Investigating Agency. Apart from a general assertion that custodial
interrogation is necessary, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate any
specific investigative purpose which cannot be achieved by directing the
applicants to continue joining the investigation. The facts of the present
case, therefore, squarely satisfy the parameters laid down by the Supreme
Court in P. Chidambaram(supra), inasmuch as the evidence is
predominantly documentary in nature, there is no material to indicate any
likelihood of tampering with the evidence or abscondence, and the
applicants have continued to cooperate with the investigation. Accordingly,
this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the
applicants is not warranted.
19. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
applicants are granted anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions stipulated
under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C./Section 482(2) BNSS, as applicable, including
that they shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon by
the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation. They be
release on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing surety to the amount
of the satisfaction of the IO.
20. The applications stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
JULY 20, 2026
P/ss
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 22/07/2026 at 21:19:59
