Dismissed¶7

Varun Arora (in Jc) v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC18 May 2026BAIL APPLN./1942/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BAIL APPLN. 1942/2026, Varun Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi, High Court of Delhi, Justice Girish Kathpalia, decision 18.05.2026; FIR No. 344/2025 PS Rajouri Garden; Sections 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) BNS; computer operator; fraudulent DMAT transfer of 18 clients' shares; forged signatures on Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS); professional capacity vs criminal fraud; bail refused at pre-charge stage; alleged swindling of Rs. 1,26,00,000/-; WhatsApp chats; bail application and CRL.M.A. 15771/2026 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Court rejected the defence contention that the applicant acted only in his professional capacity as an employee of the finance company and therefore could not be held liable; professional services cannot extend to conferring a benefit on the professional himself. ¶5

Varun Arora (in Jc) Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the applicant (accused in judicial custody) in FIR No. 344/2025, PS Rajouri Garden, for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) BNS. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Going by the expanse of the alleged fraud involving 18 persons and the stage of trial (charge yet to be framed), this is not a fit case to grant bail.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

¶5

Key takeaways

Professional services do not extend to forging signatures of the client on transaction slips, which is the allegation in the present case (forged signatures on Delivery Instruction Slits/DIS enabling transfer of 18 clients' shares).ratio¶5
Since charge is yet to be framed, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the material collected by the investigating agency.obiter¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (single judge, Justice Girish Kathpalia) dismissed the regular bail application of Varun Arora, a Computer Operator in a finance company, accused in FIR No. 344/2025, P.S. Rajouri Garden, for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) BNS. Allegation: while employed with the company he fraudulently got shares of 18 clients transferred into his own account through DMAT transactions after forging their signatures on Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS); the State said the victims were shown as his relatives in record. Rejecting the plea that he acted in a mere professional capacity attracting only civil liability, the court held that professional services cannot extend to benefiting the professional himself, nor to forging clients' signatures on transaction slips. With charge yet to be framed, the court declined to comment further on the investigative material but held that, given the expanse of the alleged fraud involving 18 persons and the stage of trial, this was not a fit case for bail; the bail application and the accompanying application (CRL.M.A. 15771/2026) were dismissed. Per the APP, WhatsApp chats allegedly showed the applicant admitting to having swindled Rs.1,26,00,000/-.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18.05.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1942/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15771/2026

¶5

VARUN ARORA (IN JC) .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. N.C. Gupta and Mr. R.D. Singh, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Inspector Ravinder Joshi and SI Vikas

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.344/2025 of Police Station Rajouri Garden for offence under Section 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/3(5) BNS.

¶12

Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that while working as a Computer Operator in a finance company, he

¶13

BAIL APPLN.1942/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages

¶14

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.18 05:26:15 +05'30'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

¶17

fraudulently got transferred shares of 18 clients of the company into his account through DMAT transactions, after forging their signatures on the Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS).

¶18

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that there is no allegation of any inducement or any dishonest intention, so it was a case of mere civil liability for which his liberty cannot be curtailed. It is also submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that he acted only in his professional capacity, being an employee of the finance company, so he deserves not to be kept in jail. Further, it is also contended that there is no forgery committed by the accused/applicant. Lastly, it is contended that since nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession, he cannot be denied bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Ravinder Joshi strongly opposes the bail application pointing out that the shares of as many as 18 persons were got transferred through DMAT accounts by the accused/applicant in his own account, which is not a mere professional service extended by him. Further, it is also contended that the accused/applicant forged signatures of those DMAT account holders on the DIS. It is also submitted that the accused/applicant showed the victims of the fraud as his relatives in record. It is also contended by learned APP for State, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, that there are WhatsApp chats, in which the accused/applicant admitted having swindled away Rs.1,26,00,000/-.

¶20

BAIL APPLN.1942/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages

¶21

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

¶24

I am unable to accept the argument of learned counsel for accused/applicant that it was a case of his professional services, for which he cannot be held liable. The professional services cannot extend to granting any benefit to the concerned professional himself. Further, professional services do not extend to forging signatures of the client on the transaction slips, which is the allegation in the present case.

¶25

Charge is yet to be framed, so it would not be appropriate to comment further on the material collected by the investigating agency. But suffice it to record that going by the expanse of the alleged fraud involving 18 persons and stage of trial, this is not a fit case to grant bail.

¶26

Therefore the bail application and the accompanying application are dismissed.

¶27

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being informed to the accused/applicant.

¶28

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 KATHPALIA 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.18 05:25:22 +05'30'

¶29

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶30

MAY 18, 2026/ as

¶31

BAIL APPLN.1942/2026

¶32

Page 3 of 3 pages

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 17:46:45

Varun Arora (in Jc) v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Arora (in Jc) v. the State of NCT of 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

Rohit Negi Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sanjeev Bansal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Balaji Venketest & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vishal Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ashanand Saini@Anand Saini Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mr Ankit Verma & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.