Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Anticipatory Bail: Fake Currency Fraud
Delhi High Court · 6 November 2026

Internet Wolves and a Red Suitcase: Anticipatory Bail Refused in Rs 1 Crore Fraud

In Naseem Sheikh v. State, the Delhi High Court refused pre-arrest bail to a man described as the principal conspirator in a Rs 1 crore cash-exchange fraud, holding that parity with co-accused fails where the applicant’s role is distinct and graver.

☎  Speak to the Chamber Chamber & Location

A complainant transfers Rs 1 crore by RTGS on the promise of receiving Rs 1.20 crore in cash. The suitcase handed over in return contains bundles of counterfeit notes marked “Full of Fun” and “Churan Label”, padded with books. On 6 November 2026, in Naseem Sheikh v. State of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 4817/2026), Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the man the investigation describes as the scheme’s principal conspirator — and used the occasion to describe how organised fraud syndicates now operate “in packs”.

The transaction that never was

The FIR — No. 09/2025 dated 5 June 2025, registered at PS Special Cell (IFSO) — records a fraud of brutal simplicity. On 4 June 2025 the complainant was induced to transfer Rs 1 crore by RTGS from his Axis Bank account to a Bank of Baroda account held in the name of a political outfit, on the assurance that he would receive Rs 1.20 crore in cash in return. What he actually received was a red suitcase of counterfeit currency — novelty notes of the kind sold as toys — topped up with books for weight. Approximately Rs 92,56,500 of the transferred amount remains unrecovered.

The applicant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the BNSS (the provision corresponding to Section 438 CrPC) after apprehending arrest in the case.

The rival cases

For the applicant. He was not named in the complaint or the FIR; the implication rested mainly on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which is weak material; every other accused in the case was already on bail, so parity applied; he was willing to join the investigation; there was no risk of flight or tampering.
→
For the State. The applicant was the principal conspirator and the ultimate beneficiary of the money; he had skipped a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS requiring his appearance; custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the unrecovered Rs 92.56 lakh, establish the modus operandi and identify the rest of the syndicate.

What the court held

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed the application. The order opens with an observation aimed well beyond the individual case: “Internet wolves, operating in packs, are increasingly on the prowl in cyberspace, acting in tandem and exploiting technology” — a description of the organised, role-divided character of modern fraud syndicates, in which each member performs a discrete function and the principal stays furthest from the paper trail.

More than a disclosure statement. The court found that material beyond the co-accused’s disclosure — electronic evidence and the money trail — prima facie connected the applicant to the offence. The evidentiary worth of that material is for the trial; at the bail stage it was enough that the connection was not built on the disclosure alone.
Parity rejected. The applicant’s role was distinct from, and graver than, that of the co-accused who were on bail. An alleged principal conspirator cannot ride on the bail orders of subordinate players.
Evasion weighed heavily. The applicant had not honoured a Section 35(3) BNSS notice for his appearance. The court held that “his subsequent willingness to cooperate, by itself, does not adequately address the apprehension” arising from that conduct.
Custodial interrogation necessary. With over Rs 92 lakh untraced and a syndicate to map, “the requirement of custodial interrogation, in the facts of the present case, cannot be brushed aside.” The application was accordingly dismissed.

Why the order matters

Parity has limits. The order is a clean illustration of the settled rule that parity turns on comparability of roles, not on the bare fact that co-accused are out on bail.
Section 35(3) notices are not optional. Skipping an appearance notice is increasingly fatal in anticipatory bail practice. The notice regime presupposes cooperation; evasion converts a borderline case into a refusal.
Money trails drive outcomes. In economic offences, the fraction of the proceeds recovered is often the single most important fact. A large unrecovered balance supplies the investigative justification for custody that defeats pre-arrest bail.
Other cases count. The court also noted that the applicant faced another case with a similar modus operandi — antecedents of the same pattern reinforce the inference of an organised operation.
The order does not decide guilt. It decides only that, at this stage, the investigation’s need to interrogate the applicant in custody outweighs his plea for pre-arrest protection. The observations on the merits are prima facie and will not bind the trial court. For accused persons, the practical lesson sits earlier in the timeline: respond to Section 35(3) BNSS notices, document cooperation, and raise parity only where the roles genuinely align.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did parity with the co-accused fail?

Because parity is not arithmetic. The co-accused who obtained bail were found to have played subordinate roles, while the applicant was identified as the principal conspirator and ultimate beneficiary of the proceeds. Courts grant parity only where the roles are genuinely comparable; a distinct and graver role takes the applicant outside the co-accused's footing altogether.

What is a Section 35(3) BNSS notice and why did it matter?

It is the notice of appearance an investigating officer issues where arrest is not immediately necessary — the successor to Section 41A CrPC. The applicant had skipped a notice requiring his appearance, and the court treated that evasion as weighing seriously against the grant of anticipatory bail, since pre-arrest protection presupposes cooperation with the investigation.

Does willingness to join the investigation later cure earlier evasion?

Rarely. The court held that a subsequently expressed willingness to cooperate does not, by itself, address the apprehensions arising from past conduct. Once an applicant has avoided the investigating agency, the offer to appear tends to look tactical, and the need for custodial interrogation is assessed on the whole record.

When does unrecovered money defeat anticipatory bail?

Where a large part of the proceeds remains untraced — here about Rs 92.56 lakh — and the investigating agency can show that custodial interrogation is needed to follow the money and identify the wider syndicate, courts lean against pre-arrest bail. Recovery and the unravelling of the network are treated as legitimate investigative objectives that anticipatory bail would frustrate.

Sources

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 14 November 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.