Delhi High Court: In a petition challenging the legality of a summoning order passed at an advanced stage of a criminal trial in a decade-old bank fraud prosecution case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a Single-Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., stayed the operation of the summoning order based solely on Section 161 CrPC Statements till next date of hearing.
The present petition arose out of a decade-old bank fraud investigation initiated on the basis of FIR dated 04-11-2015, registered pursuant to a complaint lodged by IDBI Bank alleging a loss of approximately Rs. 10 crores caused by fraudulent loan transactions.
The case originated when proprietor of Jain Tex Fab, obtained financial facilities from IDBI Bank in 2008, which were subsequently enhanced to Rs. 10 crores in May 2010. The account was declared NPA in July 2011. During recovery proceedings, IDBI Bank discovered that mortgaged properties had been sold further and that one mortgagor had allegedly been dead since 1993, with someone impersonating him during the transactions.
The CBI filed its main chargesheet in December 2016 against 14 accused persons, followed by two supplementary chargesheets in December 2023 and November 2025 respectively. Despite three chargesheets filed over nearly ten years of investigation, the petitioner was never named as an accused either in the FIR or in any of the chargesheets.
However, by order dated 16-12-2025, the Trial Court, relying primarily on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, summoned the petitioner as an accused after filing of the second supplementary chargesheet.
It is significant to note that even the respondent CBI had not pressed for summoning the petitioner, as reflected from paragraphs 5 to 5.2 of the impugned order. Further, at the time of passing of the summoning order, as many as 95 prosecution witnesses had already been examined.
The Court noted the fact that the summoning order had been passed at a stage when 95 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and that even the respondent/CBI had not pressed for summoning the petitioner. The Court opined that “the issue requires detailed deliberations in view of aforesaid.”
The Court took note of the fact that the summoning order had been passed at a stage when 95 prosecution witnesses had already been examined and that even the respondent/CBI had not pressed for summoning the petitioner.
The Court stayed the operation of the summoning order dated 16-12-2025, granted four weeks’ time to the respondent/CBI to file a status report. The Court directed the matter to be relisted on 15-04-2026 in the advance list.
[Manoj Garg v. CBI, CRL.M.C. 132/2026 & CRL.M.A. 488/2026, Decided on 13-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Indhirajith Prabhakaran M, Mr. Aditya Rathee, Mr. Ayushman Arura and Mr. Naman Verma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, SPP with Ms. Bhavya Sheetal, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Yess