MANISH KUMAR THAKKAR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages

$~1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 13.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010130742026

+ BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10062/2026

MANISH KUMAR THAKKAR .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Sumitra Choudhary, Advocate

(through video conferencing)

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State

with Investigating Officer/SI Shivam

Malik.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

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

610/2025 of Police Station Karol Bagh for offence under Section 420/34

IPC.

2. At the outset, learned APP for State points out that the

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 2 of 6 pages

accused/applicant had challenged order dated 02.04.2026 of this court before

the Supreme Court, but the SLP was later withdrawn on 07.05.2026.

3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows.

3.1 The complainant de facto, engaged in manufacturing and trading of

gold jewellery, came in contact with the present accused/applicant and co-

accused in the month of January 2024, both of whom represented

themselves as reputed traders dealing in gold jewellery and offered to carry

out business with him. The complainant de facto supplied 22 carat gold

jewellery worth Rs.61,95,840/- at behest of the accused/applicant to one

AGN Gold & Diamond, Thrissur, Kerala against an invoice. Towards part

payment, the accused persons paid only Rs.54,17,785/- and assured to pay

the remaining amount shortly. Thereafter, the accused persons again placed

an order and at their behest, the complainant de facto supplied jewellery

worth Rs.2,76,909/- to one V.R. Jewellers, Mumbai through invoice dated

07.05.2024. But no payment was made by the accused persons. The

accused/applicant contacted the complainant de facto and assured to clear all

previous outstanding and for that purpose further induced the complainant

de facto to supply four consignments of 22 carat gold jewellery of total

worth about Rs.75,84,669/- to Jai Ambe Jewellers against four invoices.

Even thereafter, the present accused/applicant and the co-accused also

personally collected from the complainant de facto, jewellery worth

Rs.7,95,200/- and Rs.6,21,800/- respectively on the assurance that the

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 3 of 6 pages

accused persons would issue invoice later in the name of their newly

established firm. But neither the jewellery was returned nor any payment

was made. When the complainant de facto insisted, the co-accused handed

over two cheques of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.7,33,675/- towards part payment,

but on being presented, both cheques got dishonoured with the remark that

the concerned bank account had already been closed way back in the year

2018.

3.2 During investigation, it was found that the complainant de facto had

indeed supplied the gold jewellery at behest of the accused persons, but the

GST registration details of the jewellery recipients, namely Jai Ambe

Jewellers, which GST particulars had been furnished by the

accused/applicant, were found to be fake. The investigator found that the

address mentioned in the GST particulars supplied by the accused/applicant

was actually a residential address of Gujarat and not a jewellery business

establishment. Further, the co-accused during his interrogation admitted that

they do not run any jewellery business.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that it is a case of

purely civil liability, which has been twisted into a criminal case only to

arm-twist the accused/applicant. Learned counsel for accused/applicant

submits that it is settled law that at the inception of the transaction, the

accused must have a dishonest intention in order to make out a case of

cheating and since in the present case, at the initial stage, the

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 4 of 6 pages

accused/applicant had admittedly made part payment of the cost of

jewellery, it is not a case of cheating. It is submitted by learned counsel that

accused/applicant is a young man and if arrested, he would suffer harm.

5. Learned APP assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Shivam Malik

strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application, submitting that the

Investigating Officer was also supplied by the complainant de facto, a tape

recorded conversation between the complainant de facto and the

accused/applicant in which the latter admitted the above mentioned

transactions. Further, on instructions of Investigating Officer, learned APP

submits that custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is required in

this case, for recovery of the cheated gold jewellery, for tracing the proceeds

of crime, for identifying the complete money trail, for apprehending

remaining accused persons and for collecting evidence related to the larger

conspiracy. It is submitted that the accused/applicant did not join

investigation despite service of notice.

6. So far as the legal position is concerned, the submission of learned

counsel for accused/applicant is absolutely undisputed that in order to

distinguish a case of cheating from a case of purely civil liability, one of the

factors is to ascertain the dishonest intention, if any, at the time of inception.

But merely because at the time of inception, the accused/applicant made part

payment of the cost of the jewellery, in view of further circumstances it

cannot be said his intention was clear. Rather, the further circumstances as

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 5 of 6 pages

recapitulated below would show that the accused/applicant made part

payment in the first transaction only to win over confidence of the

complainant de facto and thereafter induced the complainant de facto to

deliver jewellery of much higher worth. One of those further circumstances

is that the accused/applicant furnished false GST particulars of Jai Ambe

Jewellers, address whereof, according to the investigation, was only a

residence from where no business of jewellery was being carried out.

Another circumstance is that the accused/applicant issued cheques to the

complainant de facto on the bank account which had already been closed

way back in the year 2018 itself. I am of prima facie view that it is not a

case of purely civil liability.

7. Of course, on the above aspects, the trial court shall take independent

view at the time of culmination of trial, but for present purposes, I am not

convinced with the submission that no offence of cheating is made out.

8. Keeping in mind the above circumstances, the requirement expressed

by the Investigating Officer for custodial interrogation of the

accused/applicant does not appear to be unjustified. It is not just the case

property cheated gold jewellery which has to be recovered, it is also the

tracing of the proceeds of crime, ascertaining the overall expanse of the

alleged fraud and involvement of other persons also, which has to be

unearthed by the Investigating Officer. Since the accused/applicant did not

join investigation despite service of notice, the opposition to this

BAIL APPLN. 1283/2026 Page 6 of 6 pages

anticipatory bail application by the Investigating Officer is not wrong.

9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to

grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant.

10. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application and accompanying

application are dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 13, 2026/ry