Incorrect Accounting Practice Not Sufficient To Deprive Him Of Liberty: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 71-Yr-Old Man In LLP Fraud Case

The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), whereby the petitioner sought an anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “Learned counsel for the parties join issue as to whether this is a correct treatment of the amount or not. However, even assuming it is an incorrect accounting practice, this does not, at this stage, appear sufficient to expose the petitioner to deprivation of his liberty.”

Advocate Abhay Gupta represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant lodged a complaint alleging that, in February 2023, his nephew Ashok Sharma informed him of an investment opportunity in a ceramic plant at Morbi, Gujarat, and persuaded him to invest Rs 2,50,00,000 in return for a 20% stake in Fienza Ceramics LLP. Subsequently, a meeting was held between the complainant, his son Kartikay Sharma, Ashok Sharma, and Shinoy Sharma (son of Ashok Sharma), wherein Ashok Sharma and his son represented that the existing partners of the LLP were liquidating 70% of their shareholding. The complainant and his son were induced to invest in the assurance of high returns. Acting upon these representations, the complainant initially paid Rs. 2,00,000 and then a sum of Rs 21 lakh in cash to Ashok Sharma in two tranches. The complainant stated that, for over one and a half years, he repeatedly requested the accused persons to either transfer the promised shareholding or refund the invested amount; however, the accused consistently evaded their obligations by offering false assurances and excuses.

During the course of the investigation, notices under Section 35(3) BNSS were issued to the concerned accused persons. During interrogation, the petitioner admitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs 98 lakh was lying in the account of the LLP and had been reflected as an unsecured loan. Further, during the investigation, the accused Praveen Kumar, Kalpesh Jayantilal Doshi, and Rajnikant Govind Bhai Dayani also admitted that the said amount had been paid towards partnership in the LLP. The petitioner had earlier approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, but the same was rejected.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Court, the petitioner joined the investigation, and there was no allegation of misuse of the liberty granted.

The Bench noted that the allegation against the petitioner of involvement in the conspiracy was sought to be supported by reference to the balance sheet of the LLP for the financial year 2024–2025, filed by the present partners, including the petitioner. The said balance sheet reflected Rs 98 lakh as an “unsecured loan” from the complainant and his sister-in-law. The same treatment of the amount was reflected in the previous year’s accounts, prior to the petitioner becoming a member of the LLP. As per the Bench, this incorrect accounting practice did not appear sufficient to expose the petitioner to deprivation of his liberty.

Considering the advanced age of the petitioner, the documentary nature of evidence, his clean record, and the fact that he had joined the investigation while also cooperating with the IO, the Bench granted him anticipatory bail.

Cause Title: Ghisulal Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4458)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Abhay Gupta, Paramjeet Singh, Bhavya Garg, Himani Kumar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Tarang Srivastava, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocates Shubham Kalanwal, Aviral Mittal, Vignesh, Himanshu Tyagi, Samiksha Sharma, Aman Gaur

Click here to read/download Order