Delhi High Court – Orders
Arjit Kumar Alias Ajit Diwan vs State Through Sho Ps Special Cell on 30 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3784/2023
ARJIT KUMAR ALIAS AJIT DIWAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Pandey, Mr.
Arvind Kumar, Ms. Ritika Davis
Franklin, Mr. Kartik Dhingra, Mr.
Randeep Pundir and Mr. Ravi
Thakur, Advocates.
versus
STATE THROUGH SHO PS SPECIAL CELL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 30.03.2026
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks
anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 216/2023 dated 12.08.2023,
registered at Police Station Special Cell, New Delhi, under Sections
419/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], and Section 12 of
the Passports Act, 1967.
2. I have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant,
and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
3. The prosecution has filed two status reports, which are on record.
4. The prosecution case, as revealed in the status reports, may be
summarised as follows:
a. On 01.08.2023, the complainant, who is a Head Constable in the
BAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 1 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45
Immigration Wing at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New
Delhi, found that a passenger by the name of Sachin Bishnoi had
entered the country without a corresponding departure record. It
was discovered that he had departed from India using a
fraudulently obtained Indian Passport bearing No. V7629433. The
said passport was in the name of ‘Tilak Raj Toteja’, but bore the
photograph of Sachin Bishnoi.
b. Sachin Bishnoi was arrested on 14.08.2023. In the course of
investigation, it was found that he had obtained this passport from
one Rahul Sarkar.
c. Rahul Sarkar was arrested on 15.08.2023, and several documents
including Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, voter ID cards, cheque books,
passbooks, driving licenses, etc., were recovered from him. These
included documents in the name of ‘Tilak Raj Toteja’.
d. In his disclosure statement, Rahul Sarkar stated that he was
assigned the task of preparing forged ID documents for Sachin
Bishnoi by one Navneet Prajapati, and that the present applicant
had given Rs.1,50,000/- for this purpose.
5. Upon the applicant being issued notices by the police to join
investigation, he sought anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions
Court, which was rejected vide order dated 27.10.2023.
6. Upon the present application being filed before this Court, interim
protection against coercive action was granted by order dated 02.02.2024,
recording the following submission on behalf of the applicant:
“4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that
the latter has already been chargesheeted in case FIR No. 255/2022,
under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and SectionBAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 2 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45
465/466/471/474/120B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Saket and the
same is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is
pointed out that the aforesaid chargesheet pertains to the same cause
of action for which the present applicant has been implicated in the
instant FIR. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot
be prosecuted twice for the same offence.”
7. The aforesaid interim protection has continued for more than two
years. It is not disputed that the applicant joined investigation, although
there are some allegations of non-cooperation, as recorded in the orders
dated 27.08.2024 and 07.08.2025.
8. The principal submission of Mr. Kumar, in support of the present
application, is that the FIR concerns an alleged offence, which is already
the subject matter of another FIR bearing No. 255/2022, registered at
Police Station Saket, District South, New Delhi, under Sections
465/466/471/474/120B of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
He submits that the said FIR also relates to an allegation of forgery
concerning the same passport [No. V7629433], in which the same co-
accused Rahul Sarkar, has disclosed the involvement of the present
applicant. It is contended that the present FIR thus amounts to a second
prosecution for the same alleged offence.
9. Mr. Chauhan, on the other hand, draws my attention to the non-
cooperation of the applicant as detailed in the second status report,
including an allegation that he has failed to disclose the purpose for
which certain amounts are allegedly credited to his account from one
Radhe Krishan Travels, and was unable to provide a satisfactory
explanation for the transaction of Rs. 1,50,000/- from his account to co-
accused Rahul Sarkar. It is also contended that the applicant is involved
in other criminal cases.
BAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 3 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Kumar submits that the allegation of non-
cooperation against the applicant is false. The applicant has joined the
investigation and cooperated to the extent that all information within his
knowledge has been provided to the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. He
submits that the allegation of non-cooperation is, in fact, tantamount to
requiring the applicant to give information about which he has no
knowledge, as well as to make self-incriminatory statements, contrary to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijender v. State of Haryana [SLP
(CRL.) 1079/2024, decided on 06.03.2024] [hereinafter, “Bijender”].
11. Mr. Kumar also submits that, out of the seven FIRs enumerated in
the status report, three relate to periods more than ten years ago, and one
– FIR No. 255/2022 at Police Station Saket – is the very FIR that the
applicant claims relates to the same offence, on the basis of which the
present FIR has been registered.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that
this is a fit case for grant of relief to the applicant. The prima facie case
against him is based upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Rahul
Sarkar. There is no allegation of any recovery of forged documents from
the possession of the present applicant. To the extent that he was required
to produce information relating to his financial dealings with Radhe
Krishan Travels and Rahul Sarkar, it is the contention of Mr. Kumar that
the applicant has furnished all the documents in his possession. It is
always open to the IO to draw conclusions from those documents, but the
failure to produce documents which, according to the applicant, he does
not possess, cannot be regarded as non-cooperation. The allegation of
non-cooperation cannot be founded on the failure to make self-
BAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 4 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45
incriminatory statements, as held by the Supreme Court in Bijender and
Hemant Kumar v. State of Haryana [SLP (CRL.) 232/2024, decided on
06.03.2024]. The applicant has already been granted interim protection
for a period of over two years.
13. As far as the prior criminal involvements of the applicant are
concerned, Mr. Kumar rightly submits that three of the seven FIRs are
from the years 2000 and 2004. Further, FIR No. 255/2022 is the FIR
which the applicant contends concerns the same offence as the present
FIR.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the interim order dated 02.02.2024 is
confirmed, and it is directed that in the event of arrest in connection with
FIR No. 216/2023 dated 12.08.2023, registered at Police Station Special
Cell, New Delhi, under Sections 419/468/471 of the IPC, and Section 12
of the Passports Act, 1967, the applicant shall be released on bail, subject
to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with two
sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned IO/Station
House Officer [“SHO”], and subject to the following further conditions:
a. The applicant shall appear before the concerned IO as and when
required, and cooperate with the investigation.
b. The applicant shall furnish his residential address to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall not change the same without prior intimation to
the IO/SHO.
c. The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile number remains
operational and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall
not be changed, nor shall the phone be switched off, without priorBAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 5 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45
intimation to the IO/SHO.
d. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, nor visit, nor
offer any inducement, threat, or promise to the family of the
deceased, or any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons
acquainted with the facts of the case.
e. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence
nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice
the proceedings in the pending trial.
f. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
the proceedings.
15. The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
17. It is specifically made clear that this Court has not rendered any
finding on whether the present FIR is, in fact, a second FIR arising out of
the same offence, which is a matter for the Sessions Court to consider at
the appropriate stage, in accordance with law.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 30, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
BAIL APPLN. 3784/2023 Page 6 of 6
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 30/03/2026 at 22:36:45