Dismissed¶29

Nityanand Upadhyay v. Govt of NCT F Delhi

Delhi HC7 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./1703/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; High Court of Delhi; BAIL APPLN. 1703/2026; decided 07.07.2026 by Justice Saurabh Banerjee; applicant Nityanand Upadhyay; FIR No.105/2026 dated 25.02.2026; PS Neb Sarai; Sections 420/34 IPC; application under Section 482 read with Section 528 BNSS 2023; Section 41A CrPC notices; forged and fabricated FD certificates; deposit scheme M/s Unique Strategies Solution; Rs. 30,00,000/- invested; Rs. 13,03,500/- alleged interest; financial advisor; evasive and contradictory interrogation responses; further custodial interrogation required; dismissed; views on merits no bearing on trial.

What did the court decide?

The applicant gave evasive responses containing contradictions during investigation, and therefore further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. ¶24

Nityanand Upadhyay Vs Govt of NCT F Delhi — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant (Nityanand Upadhyay) in FIR No.105/2026 dated 25.02.2026 registered under Sections 420/34 IPC at PS Neb Sarai, Delhi.

¶11

Court's answer

The applicant gave evasive responses containing contradictions during investigation, and therefore further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Although no documents bearing the applicant's signatures were found, being the financial advisor of the Entity it is hard to believe he had no knowledge of the documents and/or the FDRs issued over 2023-2025.

¶24

Key takeaways

There were admittedly numerous transactions in the applicant's bank account during 2023-2025 totalling Rs. 30,00,000/-, some directly made by the complainant and his wife into the applicant's account.ratio¶27
The court flagged as strange and suspicious that learned counsel for the applicant repeatedly addressed the co-accused as a Director of the Entity when he is in fact its Proprietor.ratio¶27
Under such suspicious circumstances, there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Saurabh Banerjee, J., 07.07.2026) dismisses anticipatory bail application under Section 482 read with Section 528 BNSS 2023 by Nityanand Upadhyay in FIR No.105/2026 dated 25.02.2026 (Sections 420/34 IPC, PS Neb Sarai). Complainant and wife were induced from 2023 to invest Rs. 30,00,000/- in the deposit scheme of 'M/s Unique Strategies Solution'; after receiving c. Rs. 13,03,500/- alleged interest, payments stopped in July 2025; enquiry revealed the Entity did not exist at its address and FD certificates were forged and fabricated. Section 41A CrPC notices were served; the applicant, the Entity's financial advisor, joined investigation but gave evasive, contradictory answers; absence of his signatures on documents did not persuade the court he lacked knowledge of the documents/FDRs; numerous 2023-2025 transactions in his account (including direct receipts from the complainant and wife) and the Director-vs-Proprietor discrepancy regarding the co-accused made the circumstances suspicious. Custodial interrogation held necessary; application dismissed; views on merits expressly confined to the bail adjudication with no bearing on the case/trial.

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1703/2026

¶4

NITYANAND UPADHYAY

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Through: Mr. M. K. Singh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT F DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh and Mr. Ashish Mahani, Advocates with SI Ankit Sagar, PS: Neb Sarai Mr. Punit Basist, Ms. Kirti Tanwar, Advocates for R-2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 07.07.2026

¶11

By virtue of the present bail application under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ), the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.105/2026 dated 25.02.2026 registered under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) at PS.: Neb Sarai, Delhi.

¶12

Status Report handed over by the learned APP is taken on record.

¶13

Succinctly put , as per complaint made by the complainant, he and his wife, came in contact with applicant in the year 2023, when he induced them to invest in deposit scheme of the Company, i.e., “M/s Unique Strategies Solution” ( Entity ) by assuring high returns. Believing the same, a total amount of Rs.30,00,000/- ( Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only ) between

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:56

¶16

March 2023 and July 2025 was invested into various bank accounts of the Entity and the applicant via multiple transactions.

¶17

Subsequently, although an alleged interest of approximately Rs.13,03,500/- was received by the compliant, however, the applicant stopped making payments from July 2025. Thence, during enquiry, it was found that the Entity did not exist at the said address and in fact the applicant had issued forged and fabricated FD Certificates. Pursuant thereto, the complainant made a demand for refund, however, the applicant refused to return the amount involved. This resulted in registration of the present FIR.

¶18

During further investigation, various notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( Cr.P.C ) were served upon the applicant and the co-accused person, whereafter, although the applicant joined investigation, however, he had given contradictory statements. In fact, the applicant herein was the financial advisor.

¶19

It is under this factual backdrop that this Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP as also the learned counsel for the complainant. 7. The above contents of the documents filed alongwith the Status Report, evince that the co-accused person has claimed himself to be a Director of the Entity. The relevant extract of the Interrogation Report dated 02.07.2026 of the co-accused person states as under:-

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:56

¶22

The relevant extract of the Interrogation Report dated 06.04.2026 of

¶23

the applicant is also extracted herein as under:-

¶24

As borne out, the applicant has given evasive responses and there are contradictions therein, and thus further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Further, although there are no documents bearing the signatures of the applicant, however, being a financial advisor of the Entity it is hard to believe that he did not have any knowledge about them

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:56

¶27

and/ or qua the FDR’s issued from time to time, and that too for a period of two years from 2023 till 2025 continuously. Moreover, admittedly there were numerous transactions in the bank account of the applicant during the said period of 2023 till 2025 of Rs. 30,00,000/-, and some of those were directly made in the bank account of the applicant by the complainant as also his wife. Despite thereto, strangely today learned counsel for the applicant has repeatedly addressed the co-accused person as a Director of the Entity, whence is a Proprietor thereof.

¶28

Under such suspicious circumstances, there is no reason to anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶29

In light of the afore-going as also taking a cumulative view of the facts and circumstances involved, the present application seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. 12. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.

¶30

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

¶31

JULY 07, 2026/So

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:56

Nityanand Upadhyay v. Govt of NCT F Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityanand Upadhyay v. Govt of NCT F Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saleem Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Rakesh Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sachin Vs State NCT of Delhi

Asif Khan & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nitin Vashisht Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Jitendra Kumar Saxena and Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.