< Back

Case Analysis State NCT of Delhi vs Ankit Jhamb 2026 DHC 1415

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, disposes of two petitions: one filed by the State seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent-accused, Ankit Jhamb, and another filed by the complainant seeking the same relief. The accused was implicated in a large-scale financial fraud involving the diversion of over Rs. 6 crores. The High Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the cancellation of bail, drawing a crucial distinction between challenging the legality/perversity of a bail order (an appeal against grant) and seeking cancellation based on supervening circumstances (misconduct post-bail). The court found no illegality or perversity in the original bail order and no subsequent misconduct by the accused, and therefore refused to interfere.

1. Heading for the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

CRL.M.C. 7330/2025
CRL.M.C. 4163/2025

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ....Petitioner (in CRL.M.C. 7330/2025)
AVIATION SERVICES LLC ....Petitioner (in CRL.M.C. 4163/2025)
versus
ANKIT JHAMB & ORS. ....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 18th FEBRUARY, 2026

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following legal framework:

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS):
Section 528: The successor to Section 482 Cr.P.C., preserving the inherent powers of the High Court.
Section 483(3): Corresponds to Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to cancel bail granted under Chapter XXXIII.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): The case was registered and initially processed under the Cr.P.C. before the BNSS came into force. Key provisions considered are:
Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court.
Section 439(2): Power of the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail.
Section 438: Provision for anticipatory bail.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy): The offences with which the respondent was charged.
Principles Governing Cancellation of Bail: The judgment extensively discusses and applies the well-settled distinction between two types of challenges to a bail order:
Setting Aside/Recall of Bail Order (Appeal against grant): This challenge is directed at the order itself. It requires the petitioner to show that the order was illegal, perverse, arbitrary, passed without considering relevant material, or based on irrelevant material. The court looks at the legality of the order at the time it was passed.
Cancellation of Bail (based on supervening circumstances): This challenge is based on the conduct of the accused after being granted bail. It requires showing misuse of liberty, such as tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, absconding, or violating bail conditions.

Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:

Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349: (Supreme Court) - Classic case stating that bail can be cancelled if it was granted in disregard of material facts or in an arbitrary manner, or if supervening circumstances warrant it.
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280: (Supreme Court) - Reiterated principles for cancellation of bail.
Dr. Narendra K. Amin vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2008 (6) SCALE 415: (Supreme Court) - Held that consideration of irrelevant materials renders a bail order vulnerable.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496: (Supreme Court) - Laid down factors to be considered for grant of bail.
Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP, (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SC 129; State of Kerala vs. Mahesh, AIR 2021 SC 2071: (Supreme Court) - Further elaborated on the considerations for bail and its cancellation.
Y vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269: (Supreme Court) - Clearly distinguished between setting aside a bail order on grounds of illegality/perversity and cancelling it on supervening circumstances.
P vs. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211: (Supreme Court, Three-Judge Bench) - Explained that interference with a bail order is warranted if it is illegal, perverse, or premised on irrelevant material.
Ajwar vs. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768: (Supreme Court) - Reiterated that while bail should not be cancelled mechanically, an unreasoned or perverse order is always open to interference.
Ashok Dhankad vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Citation not fully provided in text, but referred to) - Summarized the principles for setting aside bail orders, including perversity, illegality, and non-consideration of relevant factors.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

The Fraud: The complainant, Aviation Services LLC, was cheated of over Rs. 6,05,99,675/- in a fake supply of goods scheme. The money was transferred to the account of M/s Mangalam Traders.
Money Trail: The investigation revealed that the fraud amount was subsequently diverted to several beneficiary entities, including M/s AJ Steel (proprietorship of the respondent, Ankit Jhamb) and M/s RJ Enterprises.
Role of Ankit Jhamb (Respondent): The investigation alleged that Ankit Jhamb's firm, M/s AJ Steel, received approximately Rs. 3.15 crores from the diverted funds. It was also alleged that he operated the account of M/s RJ Enterprises, another beneficiary. CDR/IMEI analysis allegedly linked a mobile number associated with the main account to the respondent.
Grant of Anticipatory Bail (22.04.2025): The learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to Ankit Jhamb. The order considered the status report, noted that the evidence was largely documentary, that the respondent had joined investigation, and that custodial interrogation was not demonstrated to be indispensable at that stage.
Petitions for Cancellation:
The State filed a petition (CRL.M.C. 7330/2025) directly in the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail, arguing the order was perverse and ignored material evidence.
The Complainant filed a petition (CRL.M.C. 4163/2025) after the Sessions Court dismissed its application for cancellation, arguing the same grounds.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The court framed and addressed the following primary issues:

Nature of Challenge: Whether the petitions were seeking cancellation of bail based on supervening circumstances (post-bail misconduct) or were, in substance, challenging the legality and perversity of the original bail order itself (an appeal against grant).
Legality of the Bail Order: Whether the order dated 22.04.2025 granting anticipatory bail to the respondent was illegal, perverse, arbitrary, or passed without considering relevant material, thereby warranting interference.
Existence of Supervening Circumstances: Whether there was any evidence of misconduct by the respondent after the grant of bail, such as tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or violating bail conditions, that would justify cancellation.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was anchored in the well-established jurisprudential distinction between challenging a bail order and cancelling it based on subsequent events.

Distinction Between Recall and Cancellation: The court began by clearly articulating the difference, relying heavily on Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Ajwar vs. Waseem.
Recall/Setting Aside: Focuses on the order itself. The court examines if the order was passed on irrelevant material, ignored relevant material, or was otherwise perverse or illegal.
Cancellation: Focuses on the accused's conduct post-bail. The court examines if the accused has misused the liberty, tampered with evidence, or violated conditions.
Petitions are Essentially a Challenge to the Order: The court observed that both petitions did not allege any supervening circumstances. There was no claim that the respondent had threatened witnesses, tampered with evidence, or absconded. The core of the grievance was that the bail order itself was flawed because it ignored the gravity of the economic offence and the detailed money trail. This was, in substance, an appeal against the grant of bail, not a cancellation petition.
Bail Order Was Not Perverse or Illegal: The court examined the impugned order and found it to be a reasoned one. The ASJ had considered the status report, the nature of the evidence (largely documentary), and the fact that the respondent had joined the investigation. The court held that the mere seriousness of the offence or the magnitude of the amount, without more, does not automatically render a bail order perverse. The ASJ's view that custodial interrogation was not indispensable at that stage was a plausible one.
No Grounds for Interference: Applying the principles from Ashok Dhankad and P vs. State of M.P., the court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or non-consideration of relevant factors in the bail order. The subsequent order of the ASJ dismissing the cancellation application was also found to be correct, as it noted the absence of any violation of bail conditions.
Documentary Evidence and Recovery: The court noted that the case rested substantially on documentary material (bank statements, transaction records) which was already in possession of the investigating agency. The non-recovery of the amount, by itself, was not a ground to cancel bail, especially when there was no allegation that the accused was obstructing the investigation.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish any new legal principle. Its primary value lies in its role as a clear and comprehensive restatement of the existing, well-settled law regarding the cancellation of bail. It serves as a practical guide by:

Reiterating the Crucial Dichotomy: It firmly anchors the distinction between challenging the legality of a bail order (an appeal) and seeking its cancellation based on subsequent misconduct. This distinction is critical for litigants to frame their remedies correctly.
Affirming the "Perversity" Standard: It reaffirms that for a superior court to interfere with a bail order on the ground of perversity, the error must be manifest. A mere disagreement with the lower court's assessment of the gravity of the offence or the need for custody is not sufficient.
Limiting the Scope of "Economic Offence" Arguments: The judgment clarifies that while the nature of an economic offence is a relevant factor, it is not a trump card that automatically vitiates any bail granted. The court must still examine if the bail order was passed after considering all relevant factors.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was methodical and firmly rooted in precedent.

Categorization of the Remedy: The first and most important step was to correctly identify the nature of the petitions. By examining the grounds raised, the court concluded they were essentially a challenge to the original bail order, not a cancellation petition.
Application of the Correct Legal Test: Having categorized the petitions, the court applied the test for setting aside a bail order (perversity, illegality, non-consideration of relevant material) as laid down in Ashok Dhankad, P vs. State of M.P., and Ajwar.
Scrutiny of the Impugned Order: The court did not re-appreciate the entire evidence. It looked at the Sessions Court's order to see if it had considered the relevant material (status report, nature of offence, cooperation of accused). It found that it had.
Rejection of "Supervening Circumstances" Argument: The court noted the complete absence of any allegation of post-bail misconduct, which is a prerequisite for a pure cancellation petition.
Deference to Discretion: The court acknowledged that the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretion by the lower court. It correctly refrained from substituting its own view merely because another view (denying bail) was possible. It only interfered if the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely, which it found not to be the case.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a model of judicial restraint and a correct application of the principles governing bail jurisprudence.

Strengths: The primary strength is its doctrinal clarity. By meticulously distinguishing between "recall" and "cancellation" and then applying the correct legal framework, the court avoids the common error of conflating the two. The reliance on a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents provides a solid legal foundation. The judgment also serves an important practical purpose: it prevents the State and complainants from using "cancellation" petitions as a backdoor method to re-argue the merits of a bail application that they lost at the first instance.
Correctness: The decision is legally impeccable. The petitioners failed to meet the high threshold required to set aside a discretionary order granting bail. The Sessions Court's order was reasoned and considered the relevant factors. In the absence of perversity or subsequent misconduct, the High Court was right not to interfere.
Potential Criticism: A critic might argue that in a case involving a massive financial fraud and a complex money trail, custodial interrogation was necessary, and the Sessions Court erred in not appreciating this. The High Court's response, however, is that this is a disagreement on the weight to be given to a factor, not a demonstration of perversity. The High Court's role is not to second-guess such discretionary assessments.

Final Outcome:

Both petitions were dismissed. The court upheld the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent, Ankit Jhamb, finding no ground to interfere. All pending applications were also disposed of.