Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by an individual accused of cheating multiple persons of crores of rupees under the guise of religious faith and investment schemes. The court emphasized the vulnerability of individuals facing hardships who fall prey to misleading assurances made in the name of religious preachers. 

The matter arose from an FIR registered on the complaint of Gurpreet Kaur Rai, who alleged that she and her children — Navjeet Kaur Rai, Jaspreet Kaur Rai, and Karanbir Singh Rai — were cheated of ₹5.63 crore by the accused and his associates. According to the complainant, the parties were disciples of a religious preacher and had attended spiritual congregations together. The accused reportedly assured the complainant, invoking the preacher’s blessings, that he would secure employment for her son in Dubai.

Subsequently, the accused persuaded the complainant and her family to invest large sums of money in various schemes, promising high returns and invoking the name of the religious preacher. The first payment was allegedly made in September 2017, followed by several transactions over a period of two years. At one point, the complainant even sold her maternal property in Chandigarh, hoping to become a silent partner in a Dubai-based venture proposed by the accused.

The complainant further stated that the accused addressed her as “Maa” and manipulated her emotions to gain her trust. In September 2018, she and her family invested ₹56 lakh in a scheme known as the “Global Money Basket,” in which the accused and his associates claimed directorship and promised double returns within two years. Despite repeated assurances, the complainant and her children did not receive any returns and eventually filed a police complaint.

Advocate Hirein Sharma, representing the accused, submitted that a sum of ₹96 lakh had already been repaid in accordance with a mediation settlement, but admitted that no payments were made after December 2024. It was contended that the matter was civil in nature and had been given a criminal colour, and further argued that the accused had cooperated with the investigation.

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha, for the State, opposed the bail application, pointing out that the accused had failed to appear for investigation despite several notices. It was submitted that the accused had fled to an undisclosed location and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the money trail. The status report indicated that other individuals had also been cheated in a similar manner, involving amounts exceeding ₹8 crore.

The court observed that the accused had repeatedly been granted interim protection from arrest by previous benches, conditional upon repayment of the amounts due, but he failed to honour the settlement.

The court remarked that “Suffice it to say that the title of that preacher as disclosed in the FIR leaves no doubt that the complainant de facto got induced to pay money to the accused/applicant, who convinced her that it is with the inspiration of that preacher, all her problems would get solved and she would get rich through substantial profits on the investments”.

While acknowledging that bail proceedings are not intended for the recovery of money, the court stated that leniency was extended to the accused, considering the victims’ dire financial condition. Nevertheless, the accused neither returned the money nor cooperated with the investigation.

The court, therefore, agreed that “As rightly submitted by learned prosecutor, custodial investigation is necessary in this case in order to track down the trail of cheated money”. 

Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the misuse of religious sentiments, the non-disclosure of the investment details, and the accused’s evasion of investigation, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

For Petitioner: Advocate Hirein Sharma
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Nawal Kishore Jha with Advocate Abhimanyu Sharma
Case Title: Manu Wahdwa @ Mohit v State (2025:DHC:2776)