Sunil Kumar Kandikuppa v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR NO. 285/2024 of PS Punjai Bagh for offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC.

2. In this anticipatory bail application pending since 06.03.2025 (though before me this is the first date), none appears on behalf of State. Neither the learned prosecutor nor the IO has appeared. It seems that State has no objection in grant of anticipatory bail. Besides, by way of order dated 07.03.2025, for the reasons mentioned therein, the learned predecessor bench had granted interim protection to the accused/applicant from arrest.

3. At this stage, learned APP enters along with IO/SI Deepak. It is BAIL APPLICATION 952/2025 pages submitted by learned APP on instructions of the IO that there is no need for any custodial interrogation but the accused/applicant should at least once join the investigation and answer queries of the IO.

4. Broadly speaking, the case for offence under Section 420 IPC was registered against the accused/applicant on the allegation of short supply of goods in the course of sale transaction, wherein as against approximately Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, goods worth only Rs. 4,00,00,000/- were supplied and despite assurance to pay back the balance amount, the accused/applicant did not do so. According to the accused/applicant, as reflected from order dated 07.03.2025, it was only a civil transaction.

5. In view of above circumstances, especially the specific stand taken by the State, there is no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

6. The Anticipatory Bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned and also subject to the accused/applicant joining the investigation, as and when called in writing by the IO.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) JANUARY 14, 2026