This judgment delivered by the High Court of Delhi addresses an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC (or equivalent provisions) by the accused, Manish Kumar Thakkar, who sought protection from arrest in FIR No. 610/2025 registered at Police Station Karol Bagh for offenses punishable under Section 420/34 of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the bail application after concluding that the systematic nature of the fraud—including the use of fake GST particulars, closed bank accounts, and initial part-payments designed merely to build false confidence—prima facie established a case of cheating right from the inception, necessitating custodial interrogation.
- Background and Prosecution Case: * The de facto complainant, engaged in the manufacturing and trading of gold jewellery, was approached in January 2024 by the applicant and a co-accused who posed as reputed traders.
- Under the guise of business dealings, the complainant supplied significant quantities of 22-carat gold jewellery to various entities (such as AGN Gold & Diamond, V.R. Jewellers, and Jai Ambe Jewellers) based on orders and directions given by the accused persons.
- Although a part-payment of Rs. 54,17,785/- was made against the first transaction, subsequent consignments and personally collected jewellery worth lakhs were never paid for or returned.
- Cheques handed over toward part-payment were dishonored because the associated bank account had been closed as far back as 2018. Furthermore, the GST registration details provided by the applicant for Jai Ambe Jewellers turned out to be fake, pointing to a residential address rather than a business establishment.
- Applicant’s Arguments: * The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the matter was purely civil in nature and was wrongfully twisted into a criminal case to exert pressure.
- It was contended that since a part-payment was made initially, a dishonest intention at the inception—which is mandatory to constitute the offense of cheating—was lacking.
- The counsel also emphasized that the applicant was a young man vulnerable to harm if arrested.
- State’s Arguments: * The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), supported by the Investigating Officer, strongly opposed the bail application.
- They submitted a tape-recorded conversation between the complainant and the applicant wherein the latter admitted to the transactions.
- Custodial interrogation was argued to be vital for recovering the cheated gold jewellery, tracking the proceeds of crime, uncovering the money trail, identifying other conspirators, and addressing the fact that the applicant had failed to join the investigation despite receiving notices.
- High Court’s Observations and Decision: * The Court acknowledged that while initial part-payment is a factor when examining dishonest intention at inception, it cannot be viewed in isolation.
- Subsequent actions—such as supplying fake GST particulars of a residential address and issuing cheques from a bank account closed since 2018—demonstrated that the initial part-payment was merely a tactic to win the complainant’s confidence before inducing larger deliveries.
- The Court held that a prima facie case of cheating was established, ruling out the defense of a purely civil dispute.
- Given the gravity of the fraud, the necessity for custodial interrogation to recover case properties and trace proceeds of crime, and the applicant’s failure to cooperate with the investigation, the High Court found no grounds to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
2026 DHC 6628
Manish Kumar Thakkar v. State of NCT of Delhi (D.O.J. 13.08.2026)
