Chandan Kumar vs State (NCT Of Delhi)

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 674/2025 of Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi for offence under Section 318(4)/316(2)/3(5)/61(2)/112 BNS.

Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that he is the tenant of the office space, which space was being misused by the co-accused persons by running a racket for college admissions. It is alleged that the co-accused persons collected money from a number of persons, which was to the total tune of Rs. 57,00,000/- under the pretext of getting them admitted in a college in Mumbai, but no such admission was arranged and the co-accused persons even refused to return money.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused/applicant, so he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that even according to prosecution, not a single penny was received by the accused/applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused Kumar Gaurav has already been granted regular bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the anticipatory bail application of the accused/applicant was dismissed by the Court of Sessions on 16.07.2026 but thereafter till date, the IO has not issued any notice to the accused/applicant to join investigation, which shows that the custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is not required. It is explained by learned counsel that since co-accused persons are friends of the present accused/applicant, he allowed them to use his office space for running property dealer office, but they misused the liberty granted to them.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Neeraj Kumar accepts notice and fairly admits that apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no evidence against the present accused/applicant. However, the rent agreement of the office space has been collected by the IO. But as regards the contention that IO did not issue any notice to the accused/applicant to join investigation despite dismissal of anticipatory bail application by the Court of Sessions, no answer came from the IO except that now he shall issue the notice.

In nutshell, as on date, the only evidence against the accused/applicant is that his office space was misused by his friends, the co-accused person. To add to it, as mentioned above, the IO also does not seem interested in any interrogation of the accused/applicant. Admittedly, not a single penny out of the allegedly cheated amount was received by the present accused/applicant.

Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.

It is also directed that as and when called in writing by the IO, the accused/applicant shall join investigation.