Allowed

Devendra Jha v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC3 Apr 2025BAIL APPLN./424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed a bail application filed by a petitioner accused in a kidney transplant racket case. The court rejected the prosecution's reliance on a single bank transaction and personal documents, noting no witness committed the accused of any active role. Bail was granted on personal bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Devendra Jha Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Narcotics (NDPS) | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶4

DEVENDRA JHA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Umesh Sinha, Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for State with Insp. Pawan Kumar, ISC, Crime Chanakyapuri

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 03.04.2025

¶11

The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² ) seeks grant of regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 0132/2024, registered under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³ at P.S. Crime Branch. The Applicant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 473, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994⁴ .

¶12

The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

¶13

1 “BNSS”

¶14

2 “Cr.P.C.”

¶15

3 “IPC”

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2025 at 12:27:32

¶19

2.1 The FIR was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by one Ms. Seema Bhasin, alleging that the accused persons, namely, Sandeep Arya, Vijay Kumar Kashyap and Steffy Emmanuel, fraudulently induced her husband to part with a sum of ₹35,00,000/- on the false promise of arranging a kidney transplant. Acting upon the compliant, the police conducted a raid on 27^th June, 2024, and arrested co-accused Sumit @ Vijay Kashyap in Noida. This raid led to the recovery of forged documents, counterfeit rubber stamps, and files related to multiple patients and donors. In view of the material unearthed during investigation, the relevant provisions of THOTA were invoked. On the following day, i.e ., 28^th June, 2024, the Applicant and co-accused Sandeep Arya were arrested in this case from a five-star hotel in Goa.

¶20

2.2 Further investigation revealed that the accused persons operated in a highly organized manner. They initially secured positions as transplant coordinators at reputable hospitals, where they received training and gained access to internal procedures for kidney transplantation. Using this knowledge, they targeted patients suffering from renal failure who were undergoing treatment in hospitals located across Delhi, Faridabad, Mohali, Panchkula, Agra, Indore, and Gujarat.

¶21

2.3 The accused allegedly contacted prospective kidney donors via social media platforms, preying on their economic vulnerability by offering them ₹5 to ₹6 lakhs for a kidney. In several cases, the accused fabricated identity and residence documents to portray both donor and recipient as persons from different states, thus enabling them to circumvent scrutiny and facilitate transplants across state lines. These forged documents were then

¶22

4 “THOTA”

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶25

¶26

used to ensure the donors and recipients cleared the medical and committeelevel approvals required for transplantation.

¶27

2.4 On the basis of disclosures made by the accused, the police apprehended five additional associates, namely, Punit Kumar, Md. Hanif Shaikh, Cheeka Prashanth, Tej Prakash, and Rohit Khanna @ Narender, from various locations. From the possession of the accused and their associates, the police recovered, inter alia , 41 forged seals, 17 mobile phones, 2 laptops, 16 SIM cards, cash amounting to ₹1,50,000/-, as well as numerous fake documents and files relating to donors, recipients, and transplant procedures.

¶28

2.5 Till date the police have identified eight patients who underwent kidney transplants. Both the patients as well as the donors have been served notices under Section 41A of the CrPC and bound down in connection with the ongoing investigation.

¶29

Counsel for the Applicant raises the following grounds seeking grant for bail:

¶30

3.1 The Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was employed merely as the driver for the co-accused Sandeep Arya, who is a distant brother-in-law of the Applicant. Due to financial hardships, the Applicant had accepted the driving job offered by Sandeep Arya. Upon the request of Sandeep Arya, the Applicant provided him with the details of his bank account along with the associated debit card, as Sandeep Arya had assisted him in securing the job and they shared a distant familial bond. The Applicant was, however, unaware of any financial transactions carried out using his account and denies any involvement in or knowledge of the alleged illegal activities.

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶33

¶34

3.2 The Prosecution has already filed a chargesheet/complaint upon the completion of investigation. Therefore, the continued detention of the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose.

¶35

3.3 No incriminating material, such as forged documents, counterfeit stamps, stamp-making instruments, or medical files were recovered from the personal possession of the Applicant. There is no recovery that directly links the Applicant to the preparation or use of forged documentation.

¶36

3.4 The chargesheet names 21 accused persons. Of these, only 8 have been arrested, whereas 10 other individuals, who, according to the Prosecution’s own case, are the principal beneficiaries and alleged abettors of the conspiracy, are still at large and have merely been bound down under Section 41A CrPC.

¶37

3.5 The Applicant should be granted bail on grounds of parity. The coaccused, Puneet Kumar, was granted bail on 25^th October, 2024 despite facing more serious allegations. From Puneet Kumar, the Prosecution recovered 9 counterfeit stamps, 2 laptops related to the case, and medical files of 2 donors containing forged documents. Additionally, there were multiple financial transactions between Puneet Kumar and other co-accused. Similarly, another co-accused, Tej Prakash, was granted bail on 29^th November, 2024. Tej Prakash is alleged to have played a central role in contacting clients and sourcing donors for kidney transplants. As per the Prosecution, Tej Prakash received payments from clients and facilitated an illegal kidney transplant for his wife. Given that the co-accused persons were granted bail despite more severe allegations, it is only equitable that the Applicant be afforded the same relief.

¶38

On the other hand Mr. Khanna, APP for the State opposes the bail

¶39

Page 4 of 8

¶40

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶41

¶42

application on the following grounds:

¶43

4.1 The Applicant is alleged to be an active participant in a kidney transplant racket. He is the distant brother-in-law (cousin of the wife) of the mastermind, Sandeep Arya. He was arrested alongside Sandeep Arya from the same hotel in Goa. The Applicant willingly allowed his bank account to be used for receiving illicit funds from the husband of the Complainant, in lieu of a commission, thereby facilitating the illegal transaction.

¶44

4.2 A direct monetary transaction of ₹7,00,000/- was made by the deceased (Complainant’s husband) into the Applicant’s IDFC Bank account on 16^th December, 2023. In addition, the chargesheet records multiple financial transactions between the Applicant and other co-accused persons, pointing to his complicity in the operation of the syndicate.

¶45

4.3 Scientific evidence in the form of CDR further corroborates the Applicant’s close and frequent contact with several co-accused. This communication pattern, the Prosecution contends, is indicative of the Applicant’s active involvement in the coordination and execution of the illegal organ transplantation scheme.

¶46

4.4 Furthermore, from the Applicant’s possession, a certificate and mark sheet in his name, issued by the Registrar Counsel of Paramedical, Mohali, Punjab, pertaining to a two-year diploma in Dialysis Technician were recovered from his possession. Upon verification with the relevant authorities, these documents were found to be fake.

¶47

The Court has duly considered the aforementioned contentions. The Applicant has been in custody since 28^th June, 2024. The chargesheet has been filed, and as such, the Applicant’s continued detention for investigative purposes is no longer necessary. In the most recent status report filed by the

¶48

Page 5 of 8

¶49

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶50

¶51

Prosecution, it is noted that eight patients or prospective recipients were examined during the course of investigation. However, none of them have named or levelled any allegation against the present Applicant. The said status report, handed over across the board, is taken on record.

¶52

The most serious allegation against the Applicant is the receipt of ₹7,00,000/- into his bank account from the complainant’s husband. While this transaction, on the face of it, raises suspicion, the explanation furnished by the Applicant, that the account was operated by co-accused Sandeep Arya, a relative, who had secured employment for the Applicant, is not implausible and cannot be dismissed outright at this stage. Notably, there is no accompanying evidence indicating that the Applicant himself interacted with the Complainant’s family, made any representations, or played an active role in the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, none of the donors or recipients, including those who were examined during the investigation, have attributed any role to the Applicant. Whether this transaction was a knowing participation or a passive conduit will require closer scrutiny during trial. However, for the limited purpose of bail, and in the absence of any other substantive material, this solitary transaction, without more, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of complicity.

¶53

As for the recovery of forged documents from the Applicant’s possession, it is not in dispute that these consist of his personal marksheets, which, as per the Prosecution’s own admission, bear no nexus to the alleged organ transplant racket. There is no allegation that these documents were used in furtherance of the conspiracy or for facilitating any unlawful transplants. Further, two co-accused, namely Tej Prakash and Puneet Kumar, allegedly involved in more overt roles, have already been enlarged

¶54

Page 6 of 8

¶55

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶56

¶57

on bail,

¶58

The Applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is well-established through a catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that the object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.⁵ Accordingly, in light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

¶59

a. The Applicant will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶60

b. The Applicant shall provide permanent address to the Trial Court. The Applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in his residential address.

¶61

c. The Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶62

d. The Applicant shall provide all mobile numbers to the concerned IO, which shall be kept in working condition at all times.

¶63

e. The Applicant shall not switch off his phone or change his mobile number without prior intimation to the concerned IO. f. The Applicant will report to the concerned IO on the second and fourth Friday of every month, at 4:00 PM, and will not be kept waiting for more than an hour. g. The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not

¶64

5 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2022) 10 SCC 51.

¶65

Page 7 of 8

¶66

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶67

¶68

communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence of the case.

¶69

In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

¶70

Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶71

A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

¶72

The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

¶73

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶74

APRIL 3, 2025/ab

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

BAIL APPLN. 424/2025

¶77

Devendra Jha v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Jha v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeti Sharma Vs Saranjit Singh

Geet Garg Vs Renu Garg

Jyoti Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Randhir Singh Malik Vs Union of India & Anr.

Narender Kumar & Ors. Vs State( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Ghanshyam @ Javed Vs State NCT of Delhi