Vikesh Kumar Bansal vs. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The petitioner, Vikesh Kumar Bansal, sought regular bail in FIR No. 22/2024, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, for alleged beneficiary of fraudulent GST refunds. A second FIR, No. 5/2023, with identical allegations and accused, was also pending. The petitioner had been granted interim bail in FIR No. 22/2024 due to his wife's ill health. Subsequently, a Special Judge ordered that the petitioner's custody should be treated as being in FIR No. 5/2023, as the investigation for FIR No. 22/2024 was effectively closed. The petitioner argued that his custodial interrogation was not required in FIR No. 22/2024 and requested the current petition be treated as one for FIR No. 5/2023. The respondent conceded that the genesis of offences in both FIRs was identical.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and treated it as a bail petition in FIR No. 5/2023, accepting the respondent's statement that the petitioner's arrest was not required in FIR No. 22/2024, in light of the Special Judge's order dated 14.01.2025. The Court noted that the allegations in both FIRs were identical and the genesis of the offences was the same. The Court considered the petitioner's role as described in the status report, including handling affairs of alleged firms and creating forged rent agreements, and the transfer of Rs. 1 lac from an alleged firm to the petitioner's bank account, and Rs. 22,000/- to his wife's account. However, the Court also noted that the amount received by the petitioner was only Rs. 22,000/- and his defence that it was salary was plausible. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was an undertrial prisoner, had clean antecedents, and 14 co-accused had been granted bail. The Court found that the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation and had been in custody from 17.10.2024 to 16.12.2024. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail in FIR No. 5/2023 subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, surrendering his passport, providing contact details, informing any address change, not indulging in unlawful acts, appearing in court, and not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bail application in FIR No. 22/2024 should be treated as a bail application in FIR No. 5/2023, given the Special Judge's order and the identical nature of allegations and accused in both FIRs? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the Special Judge's order dated 14.01.2025 effectively transferred his custody to FIR No. 5/2023 and stated his custodial interrogation was not required in FIR No. 22/2024, the present petition should be considered for FIR No. 5/2023. The petitioner also highlighted that 14 co-accused had already been granted bail and he had clean antecedents. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through learned ASC, admitted on instructions that the genesis of the offences in both FIRs was identical as on date. The respondent also stated that the arrest of the petitioner was not required in FIR No. 22/2024.