Dismissed¶26

Neeraj Mandiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2026BAIL/600/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; cyber fraud; diversion of MCD funds; Metro Group of Hospitals / Metro Medical Services Ltd.; YES Bank accounts; M/s Mandiya Traders; M/s V&H Food Products; M/s Elvie Techserve Pvt. Ltd.; authorized signatory; parity with co-accused Ankur Tyagi refused; distinct role; Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Sections 316(4), 118(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 BNS; Section 66-D I.T. Act; P.S. Cyber Crime, Gautam Budh Nagar; charge sheet 16.9.2025; custody since 25.7.2025; Allahabad High Court; Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie, the Court found force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the informant and the learned AGA opposing bail. ¶19

Neeraj Mandiya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 600 of 2026

¶3

Neeraj Mandiya	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sanjeev Kumar Pandey : G.A., Paritosh Joshi, Vivek Chaturvedi

¶4

Court No. - 68

¶5

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shri Ramendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Chaturvedi and Shri Paritosh Joshi, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the records.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Mandiya has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Sections 316 (4), 118 (4), 336 (3), 340 (2), 338 of BNS and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the applicant before the Court below has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated 9.12.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.7.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged against the named co-accused Vaibhav Kumar with the allegation that Vaibhav Kumar, who was working with the recovery department of Metro Group of Hospitals including the Metro Medical Service Ltd., as Manager Recovery since 10.3.2022 and was responsible for Government

¶9

BAIL No. 600 of 2026

¶10

¶11

Panels recoveries including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had left the services of the hospital on 21.4.2025 without giving any handover and without complying the terms of employment, was involved in financial fraud to the tune of Rs.74,90,866/- by transferring the funds to that extent into fraud accounts.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the course of investigation in the statement of the co-accused Vaibhav Kumar. It has been argued that the applicant has never met Vaibhav Kumar and is not in his acquaintance. The complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime is being established on the ground that co-accused Ankur Tyagi had provided the bank account details of the applicant along with two other bank account details to Vaibhav Kumar into which a sum of Rs.74,90,866/- was transferred. It was also argued that one Subham had persuaded the applicant to open the bank account in his name and in lieu thereof paid Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant. It has also been argued that there are no recoveries from the applicant and role assigned to the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ankur Tyagi, who has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2025. The applicant also deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It has further been argued that charge sheet against the applicant has already been filed on 16.9.2025 and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned on 20.9.2025, however, charges have yet not been framed. The applicant is in custody for nearly 09 months without any criminal antecedents. The incarceration of the applicant amounts to pre trial punishment. It is submitted that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the complicity of the applicant is established from the incriminating materials collected by the investigating officer during the investigation.

¶14

Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant, in opposition to the bail plea, submits that Metro Hospitals maintains its

¶15

BAIL No. 600 of 2026

¶16

¶17

bank account with HDFC Bank i.e. Bank Account No. 065184480000046 and no bank account with YES Bank. Investigation has revealed that between December, 2023 to March, 2025, a total sum of Rs.13 crores had been paid into what was assumed to be account of Metro Medical Services Ltd., by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Only 04 crores had been received in the HDFC Bank account and the amount of Rs.09 crores had been misappropriated and siphoned into the three YES Bank accounts which were in the names of M/s V&H Food Products, M/s Mandiya Traders and M/s Elvie Techserve Pvt. Ltd., with respective authorized signatories co-accused Sagar Chauhan, applicant-Neeraj Mandiya, coaccused Harish Chopra and Ritu Sharma. During the period 2023-2025, a sum of Rs.1,94,13,094/- was transferred from account of MCD to account No. 080063400008352 in the name of M/s V&H Food Products, Rs.2,50,48,011/- into bank account No. 080063400009404 in the name of M/s Mandiya Traders, Rs.4,55,39,104/- into bank account No. 080063400004772 in the name of M/s Elvie Tech Serve Pvt. Ltd. It is further submitted that the investigating officer during the investigation has meticulously collected incriminating materials which establishes the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime and accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application warrants outright rejection.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made.

¶19

Prima facie, I find force in the submissions of Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Counsel as also learned AGA.

¶20

From the perusal of documents brought on record, it is clear that during the period of 2023-25 a sum of Rs.2,50,48,011/- was transferred from the account of MCD into bank account No. 080063400009404 in the name of M/s Mandiya Traders, of which the applicant, namely, Neeraj Mandiya is the authorized signatory. The applicant has been hand in glove with the main accused Vaibhav Kumar in the commission of alleged crime.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant also has pressed the bail plea on the ground of parity with Ankur Tyagi co-accused who has been enlarged on

¶22

BAIL No. 600 of 2026

¶23

¶24

bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.12.2025 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 28843 of 2025.

¶25

In the opinion of the Court, no case of parity with co-accused Ankur Tyagi can be said to be made out as the applicant has distinct role. The applicant is admittedly a beneficiary of the monies transferred fraudulently into his bank account. The complicity of the applicant is established from the materials collected during investigation. The Apex Court very recently in the case of Sagar versus State of U.P. and another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155 while setting aside an order granting bail to a co-accused on the ground of parity was pleased to observe that parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. Parity once considered must focus on the position of the accused which is met not only by involvement in the same offence, but on their role in the crime. The Court must strike a balance and exercise discretion judiciously considering factors like the nature of the allegations, severity of punishment, criminal antecedents and a prima facie case.

¶26

Considering all the above, no case for bail is made out. Rejected.

¶27

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

March 11, 2026

¶29

Ravi Prakash

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Mandiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Mandiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Government of U.P. at Lucknow and 3 Others

Saleem vs State of U.P.

Mohd Ekhlaq Malik vs State of U.P.

Smt Gayatri Devi vs State of U.P.

Savej vs State of U.P.

Khurshid vs State of U.P.