Ajay Kumar Nayyar v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025
The order upholds the principle that grant of bail is not automatic, especially in cases where the accused's liberty is in conflict with public interest and trial fairness.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
3 September 2025
Judges
Justice Girish Kathpalia
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The accused, Ajay Kumar Nayyar, is alleged to have cheated a businessman of ₹3.90 crores by impersonating as the nephew of Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
-
He claimed to be “Ajay Shah” and assured the complainant (a businessman) that he could secure a ₹90 crore government tender for supply of leather for renovation of the President’s Estate.
-
Over a period of time, the complainant paid ₹3.90 crores to the accused via cash and RTGS, trusting his false identity and assurance.
-
A chargesheet was filed for offences of cheating (Section 420) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B).
-
However, the prosecution sought to amend the charges to include Sections 467 and 471, as the accused allegedly gave forged cheques as security for the money he received.
-
The accused filed for bail, which was opposed by the prosecution.
Issues
-
Whether the gravity and nature of the allegations against the accused justified denial of bail?
-
Whether the pending application to amend charges (to include offences punishable with life imprisonment) is a relevant factor in considering the bail plea?
-
Whether the accused's conduct in the ongoing trial and his criminal antecedents should weigh against bail being granted?
Held
- The Court declined to grant bail, holding that: “Considering the nature and expanse of the allegations against the accused/applicant, coupled with the pending consideration of amendment in charge to include the offences under Section 467/471/120B IPC, punishable with life imprisonment, and also keeping in mind the antecedents, at this stage, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused/applicant.”
Analysis
-
The judgment demonstrates the judicial caution exercised in economic offences involving high-value fraud and impersonation, especially where:
-
Public trust and government institutions are manipulated;
-
Repeat offences or criminal antecedents are present;
-
Forged documents or cheques are used as tools of deception.
-
-
The Court considered the stage of trial (i.e., pending amendment of charge) as a key factor and was reluctant to interfere when the case was still evolving.
-
The Court also took note of trial delays caused by the accused, signaling that bail cannot be used as a license to stall proceedings.
-
This decision reaffirms that economic offences involving deceit, impersonation, and misuse of government names will be treated with seriousness by the judiciary.
-
The order upholds the principle that grant of bail is not automatic, especially in cases where the accused's liberty is in conflict with public interest and trial fairness.