Delhi High Court: While hearing an anticipatory bail application in a case alleging cheating in relation to the proposed sale of unlisted National Stock Exchange (NSE) shares, a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J., directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to inquire into the circumstances in which the investigating officer sought permission to travel to Mumbai for the purpose of “investigation (search and arrest of the accused)” despite the applicant being protected from arrest under an interim order. Taking note of a document obtained by the applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court observed that the request, which had been forwarded and approved by the superior officers, also contained apparent errors and discrepancies, including with regard to the destination for which permission had been sought. The Court further directed the investigating officer to furnish the applicant with a list of additional documents required for the investigation and permitted the complainant to place further documents on record.
Background
The complainant alleged that he was introduced to Dinesh Nihalani (DN), a dealer in shares and securities, through a common acquaintance. In June 2025, DN offered to facilitate the purchase of 25,000 unlisted NSE shares at ₹2263 per share. Although the complainant was initially reluctant as the identity of the seller was not disclosed, he proceeded with the transaction on DN’s assurances and personal guarantee. Pursuant to DN’s instructions, the complainant transferred ₹5.63 crores to Aevitas Consultancy (P) Ltd., a company of which the applicant is a Director. However, the shares were never transferred.
Subsequently, the applicant and DN refunded ₹2.90 crores to the complainant, following which the parties executed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) dated 29 September 2025. The MoU recorded that the applicant had transferred the sale consideration to Saavi Consultancy for procurement of the shares. It further stipulated that the applicant would pay ₹1 crore to the complainant, while the balance amount of ₹1.73 crores would be paid upon receipt of the same from Saavi Consultancy.
Seeking anticipatory bail, the applicant contended that he had merely acted as an intermediary, had transferred the sale consideration to Saavi Consultancy, and had already initiated legal proceedings against it. The Court, taking note of the terms of the MoU and the payments already made to the complainant, granted the applicant interim protection from arrest via order dated 14 May 2026, subject to his joining the investigation and cooperating with the investigating officer.
Analysis
Noting that the applicant had joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by order dated 14 May 2026, the Court recorded the submission of the State that certain additional documents were required from the applicant. Accordingly, it directed the investigating officer to furnish, within 2 days, a list of the documents sought, while recording the applicant’s undertaking to supply all such documents, if in his possession.
The Court also took on record the applicant’s additional affidavit dated 1 July 2026, which, inter alia, contained a document obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The document revealed that the investigating officer had sought permission to travel to Mumbai for the purpose of “investigation (search and arrest of the accused)” in connection with the subject FIR and another FIR, despite the applicant being under interim protection granted by the learned Sessions Court. In these circumstances, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned to inquire into the matter and file a report explaining the circumstances in which such request came to be made and approved. The Court also noted that the document contained apparent errors and discrepancies, including with regard to the destination for which permission had been sought.
The Court further permitted the complainant to place additional documents on record before the next date of hearing and listed the matter for further consideration on 14 July 2026.
Also Read: Sessions-First Rule in Anticipatory Bail: When Can High Courts Be Approached? | SCC Times
[Amit Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 1896 of 2026, decided on 3-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Saurav Agrawal, Vibhu Anshuman, Ravi Sharma, Parmeet Singh, Abdul Razzaq, Siddhant Raj, Advocates
For the Respondent: Manjeet Arya, APP with SI Neeraj Kumar, PS Subhash Place, Manu Sharma, Sr. Adv., Abhimanyu Arya, Abhyuday Sharma, Nimish Chib, Rahul Lather, Deepak Rajwar, Ambar Chaurasia, Harshita Bhati, Advocates
