Long Incarceration And Delayed Trial Weigh In Favour Of Bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused booked in connection with an alleged multi-crore investment fraud case involving a partnership firm accused of cheating investors on the promise of high returns through share trading.

While granting relief, the Court observed that bail proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings and that grant of bail cannot be made contingent solely upon settlement of monetary disputes.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the bail plea filed by Amit Arora in an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court noted that the applicant had already spent about two and a half years in judicial custody, charges had not yet been framed, and the trial involving 51 witnesses was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

The applicant was represented by Advocates Anant Malik and Kunal Narwal.

The State was represented by APP Manoj Pant along with Advocates Gaurav Bisht and Anita Bisht, while the complainant was represented by Advocates Hariom, Ashu Gupta and Preeti.

As per the prosecution case, the FIR was registered on a complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust against M/s Caprise Financial Services and its partners, including Amit Arora, Deep Saxena, Bibek Singh Mehta and Mohit Gupta.

The complainants alleged that the accused persons induced investors to deposit money with the firm on assurances of high returns from share trading activities.

The prosecution alleged that multiple investors and their family members transferred substantial sums and share portfolios to the firm.

It was claimed that despite receiving investments, the accused neither returned the money nor restored the entrusted share portfolios.

According to the investigation, the accused persons eventually vacated their offices and became untraceable.

The FIR initially referred to an alleged cheated amount of approximately Rs. 6 crore involving 16 families and around 41 persons.

However, during the course of investigation, financial analysis reportedly revealed that nearly Rs. 22.30 crore had been collected from around 200 persons by the partnership firm during the financial year 2019-2020.

The prosecution further alleged that the investors’ funds were falsely reflected as unsecured loans in the books of the partnership firm without the knowledge or consent of the investors. Amit Arora was stated to be a 30% partner in the firm.

Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that around 57 victims had specifically attributed an active role to the applicant in managing the affairs of the firm.

It was also contended that approximately Rs. 82 lakh had been transferred to the applicant’s personal bank account from the alleged fraudulent transactions.

On behalf of the applicant, it was argued that he had been in custody since January 2024, the chargesheet had already been filed, and the case was based primarily on documentary evidence.

The defence also emphasized that similarly placed co-accused persons had already been granted relief.

It was pointed out that co-accused Deep Saxena had been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court, co-accused Mohit Gupta had secured bail from the High Court, and proceedings against another co-accused had eventually been quashed.

The defence further contended that the dispute essentially arose out of commercial transactions and that criminal proceedings were being misused as a means to recover money.

While considering the plea, the High Court examined the allegations that the accused persons had induced investors through false assurances and misrepresentation.

The Court also took note of the prosecution’s allegation that the applicant had received remuneration, commission and profit shares from the firm in his capacity as a partner.

However, the Court found it relevant that similarly situated co-accused had already obtained bail.

The Court particularly noted that Deep Saxena, whose role was stated to be identical to that of the applicant, had been granted regular bail after remaining in custody for about four months.

Importantly, the Court reiterated that the question of bail cannot hinge entirely on whether monetary settlements have been reached with complainants.

Referring to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that criminal bail proceedings cannot be transformed into mechanisms for recovery of money.

The Court also highlighted the prolonged incarceration of the applicant and the slow pace of proceedings. It noted that the matter was still at the stage of arguments on charge and that charges had not yet been framed despite the applicant remaining in custody for about two years and five months.

The Court observed that with 51 prosecution witnesses cited, the trial was likely to consume substantial time.

In these circumstances, the High Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail.

The Court directed his release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount.

Conditions were also imposed restraining the applicant from leaving the country without permission, requiring regular appearance before the trial court, and prohibiting contact with complainants or witnesses.

The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not amount to an expression on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Amit Arora v. State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgment: 15.05.2026