Primary sources · Judgment
GULSHAN Vs STATE OF NCT DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010271602026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026
GULSHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Mr. Angad
Singh, Mr.Rohan Pratap Singh and
Mr. Varun, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State
with SI Rajak Ahmad.
Mr. Rama Nath Jha, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 08/2026 of
PS Chitranjan Park, New Delhi for offence under Section
318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/316(5) BNS.
2. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that
while employed as an accountant in the school of the complainant de facto,
he with the help of his immediate superior clerk Ms. Alka Sharma fudged
BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages
the accounts of the school in order to misappropriate EPF contributions. It is
during special audit that the management of the school came to know about
the misappropriation of funds being done by the accused/applicant and the
co-accused Alka Sharma since the year 2019. The FIR was registered on the
complaint dated 04.11.2025 of the Principal of the school.
3. In the first call today, the matter was passed over at request of learned
counsel for accused/applicant. In this second call, arguments have been
heard. Learned APP for the State submits and rightly so that the manner of
investigation by the IO/SI Rajak Ahmad in this case seems to be suspicious.
4. As recorded in the order passed today itself in the anticipatory bail
application of co-accused Alka Sharma, who was allegedly an immediate
senior of the present accused/applicant and whose interim protection from
arrest had already been withdrawn by this Court, the IO stated today that he
does not want to arrest her. That is, of course, prerogative of the IO. But
there is something more. Despite last order dated 07.08.2026 describing the
role of the Director Mr. S.C. Bahri of the management and submission of the
counsel for accused/applicant that senior functionaries of the management
who are ultimate beneficiaries are not being acted against, till date the IO
has taken no action/investigation in that regard. Further, along with this bail
application dated 29.06.2026, the accused/applicant had filed a copy of e-
mail dated 22.08.2025 addressed to Mr. Arun Jain, Chairman of the
management committee, thereby disclosing the financial bungling which
BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages
alleged bungling forms basis of the present FIR. But till date, IO/SI Rajak
Ahmad has not carried out any investigation on that line. Rather, in the said
e-mail, the present accused/applicant has levelled serious allegations against
the co-accused Alka Sharma also, whom the IO does not want to arrest.
5. Furthermore, learned APP, on instructions of learned counsel for
complainant de facto, submits that the IO is also concealing from this Court
a letter of apology mailed by the accused/applicant to the management,
which clearly shows his complicity.
6. At this stage, on specific directions the IO has produced before me a
copy of the letter dated 19.04.2025 handwritten and signed by the
accused/applicant in which the accused/applicant not just admitted his
complicity but also admitted having received a sum of Rs. 31,60,354/- in his
bank account and towards repayment of the same, he drew three post dated
cheques as well and assured to pay the balance amount after selling land of
his father. Copy of this letter dated 19.04.2025 has been clearly concealed
by the accused/applicant from this court.
7. Learned counsel for accused/applicant is not coming clear as to why
copy of this letter dated 19.04.2025 was concealed from this Court. Learned
counsel submits that he did not disclose about that letter because according
to IO, the investigation against the accused/applicant stands completed. But
this explanation does not convince, because the said letter is practically self
BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages
incriminating letter, admittedly addressed in his own hand by the
accused/applicant. So far as the IO remaining silent is concerned, as
mentioned above, learned APP himself is feeling suspicious about his
conduct.
8. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that he has been made
a scapegoat in the larger scam. But the fact remains that the
accused/applicant is a beneficiary of money, as mentioned above. Besides, I
have also gone through the special audit report, including the portions at pdf
47, 55, 57, 62 and 64 of the paper book in the case of co-accused Alka
Sharma, which extensively described role of the present accused/applicant.
9. Considering the overall circumstances, especially concealment of his
apology letter by the accused/applicant, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail
to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is dismissed.
10. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made in this
order shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the stage of culmination
of trial and the trial court shall take independent view.
11. Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police with the
direction to consider if investigation of this case be handed over to some
other senior police officer of the rank not below an Inspector, and the
investigation be supervised consistently by the concerned DCP. Copy of this
BAIL APPLN. 2386/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages
order be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed
to the accused/applicant.
12. At this stage after dictation of the judgment, learned counsel for
accused/applicant seeks bail on the ground of parity with Alka Sharma and
non arrest of Mr. Bahri and other senior officers of the management. But as
mentioned above, the prosecution itself has expressed suspicion about the
manner in which the IO has been acting, so there is no question of parity
with them. Besides, in case of the accused/applicant, he himself admitted his
guilt in writing, describing himself to be one of the beneficiaries of the
alleged fraud.
13. It is further submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that
bail proceedings cannot be punitive proceedings. Of course, bail should not
be denied as punitive measure. But in the present case, as mentioned above,
the accused/applicant concealed vital document from this Court and
investigation is pending and the same is likely to be transferred to some
senior police officer, which further investigation would also reveal about the
connection between the present accused/applicant and the senior
functionaries of the management allegedly involved in this fraud.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 12, 2026/rs