NIKITA MISHRA Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages

$~6

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010334092026

+ BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22190/2026

NIKITA MISHRA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Surya Nath Pandey, Advocate

(through video conferencing)

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State.

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate

with counsel for complainant de facto

(appearance not given)

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The orders passed today in previous two calls are extracted below:

1. The accused/applicant seeks interim protection/anticipatory bail in

case FIR No. 427/2026 of PS Seemapuri for offence under Section

319(2)/318(4)/336(3)/339/61(2) BNS.

2. The status report was returned under objections, so the same is

submitted by learned APP and is accepted across the board.

2. After addressing partly, learned counsel for accused/applicant seeks

pass over to obtain instructions if the present anticipatory bail

application is to be pressed.

3. As requested, be awaited.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

AUGUST 12, 2026/ry

BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages

4. In the midst of board, matter again taken up. Learned counsel for

accused/applicant submits that he has instructions of the accused/applicant

to press this anticipatory bail application.

5. Matter is passed over to be heard after conclusion of the remaining

urgent matters.

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

AUGUST 12, 2026/dr

2. In this third call, I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant

and learned APP for State as well as learned senior counsel for complainant

de facto. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

427/2026 of PS Seemapuri for offence under Section 319(2) /318(4)

/336(3)/339 /61(2) BNS.

3. The FIR in this case was registered on the complaint of father-in-law

of the accused/applicant, who narrated in detail the manner in which he was

defrauded by the accused/applicant at various stages. The FIR describes

various stages of matrimonial relationship between the accused/applicant

and son of the complainant de facto, at which stages the complainant de

facto was made to part away with substantial money, but those facts are not

relevant for present purposes. Limited to the present purpose, the allegation

against the accused/applicant is as follows. The accused/applicant got

married with son of the complainant de facto and thereafter, she started

living separately in Gurugram under the pretext that she had been selected as

Additional District Magistrate, Himachal Pradesh, so she was under training

and could not meet even her husband. According to prosecution, the

BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages

accused/applicant started living with one Vaibhav Tyagi as a live-in partner.

Further, according to prosecution, the accused/applicant even forged a

notification of her appointment, claiming it to have been issued by the Chief

Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The accused/applicant

transmitted over WhatsApp not just the forged appointment notification, but

also forged car stickers depicting her as ADM, Lahaul and Spiti, HP in order

to convince the complainant de facto and others that she had been appointed

as ADM. On the basis of those forged documents, the accused/applicant

started making the complainant de facto pay her money on different pretexts

in installments, which ultimately was to the total tune of approximately

Rs.39,00,000/-, and she further transferred the said money to her friends.

The accused/applicant also got sent to the complainant de facto various

emails through co-accused Anupam Kashyap conveying an impression that

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court (named as a

Judge of that Court) also had to meet her but could not. In order to make the

complainant de facto believe her claims, she also got sent emails from co-

accused Anupam Kashyap to the extent that wife of one of Hon’ble Judges

of Himachal Pradesh High Court had met with a serious accident and even a

photograph of the accident was mailed.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that she is innocent

and has been falsely involved in this case. It is contended that the FIR

nowhere alleges that the complainant de facto paid any money to the

accused/applicant. It is submitted that even according to the FIR, the money

BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages

paid by the complainant de facto was towards bribe for ensuring that the

accused/applicant gets job of a civil servant or a judge and that being so, it is

he who is guilty of wrong. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also

submits that the transmission of notification of appointment of the

accused/applicant as ADM, Himachal Pradesh from her mobile phone to the

mobile phone of the complainant de facto occurred because her mobile

phone was hacked.

5. Learned APP strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the

ground that the allegations in the FIR are extremely serious and custodial

interrogation of the accused/applicant is required in order to unearth the

exact expanse of the crime by way of finding out as to who else helped her

in forging the letter heads, seals and signatures of officers of the Himachal

Pradesh Government on which her appointment notification was forged by

the accused/applicant.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for complainant de facto also strongly

opposes the anticipatory bail application, submitting that in order to

pressurize the complainant de facto, the accused/applicant went to the extent

of alleging that he had raped her many years ago.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

accused/applicant that no money was paid to her, the same is contrary to the

contents of the FIR.

BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages

8. The larger question in the present case is not just the fraud allegedly

played by the accused/applicant in falsely representing herself as ADM, but

the manner in which she arranged the means to forge not just the

appointment notification, but also the letter heads, the seals and the

signatures of the concerned officer of Himachal Pradesh Government. Also,

as reflected from FIR, the accused/applicant forged the car stickers

representing herself as ADM, Himachal Pradesh, which also need to be

investigated into.

9. In view of the overall circumstances, I do not find requirement

expressed by the IO for custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant to be

unjustified. It would certainly be necessary to carry out custodial

interrogation of the accused/applicant. Therefore, this anticipatory bail

application is dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 12, 2026/ry