Delhi District Court
State vs Durgesh on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PREETI:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS - 03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Durgesh and Ors.
FIR No : 209/2008
U/s : 419/420/466/468/467/403/408/409/120-B IPC
P.S. : IP Estate
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 297400/2016
2. Date of commission of offense : 01.08.2008
3. Date of institution of the case : 30.09.2008
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused and parentage :1) Durgesh Kumar S/o Balbeer
Singh
2) Shailender S/o Satender
3) Savit Kumar Anand S/o Nand
Kumar
6. Offence complained of :419/420/466/468/467/
403/408/409/120-B IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 06.01.2026
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 08.01.2026
1. All the accused are facing trial for offence u/s
403/408/409/419/420/466/467/468/120 IPC. The genesis of the
FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 1/18
prosecution story is that prior to 01.08.2008, accused Durgesh entered into a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and he being working as Data Entry Operator being public servant in Income Tax Department, ITO Delhi made a fake entry with intention to get tax refund of amount of Rs. 13,31,960/- dishonestly in the fake account opened by accused Shailender and Savit Kumar in the name of Nirali Gupta and Rupesh Khanna in Centurian Bank of Punjab, Shalimar Garden, Sahibabad, UP and withdrew the same by using ATM cards and Self cheque and part amount was recovered from possession of accused Durgesh and Shailender and thus committed an offence u/s 419/420/466/468/467/403/408/409/120-B IPC. Pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant, the criminal law was set into motion vide registration of the FIR against accused persons. On completion of investigation, the present charge-sheet for offences u/s 419/420/466/468/467/403/408/409/120-B IPC was filed against all accused persons.
2. After taking the cognizance of the offences, the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with by supplying copy of charge- sheet and documents to accused persons. Thereafter, on the basis of material on record, charges for offences u/s 403/408/409/419/420/466/467/468/120 IPC were framed against accused persons. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein all accused persons admitted fact of registration of FIR No. 209/2008 PS I.P. Estate Ex. A1, documents provided by Alankrit Assignment Ltd. Ex. A2, FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 2/18 documents provided by HDFC bank and statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of Sh. A.C. Aggarwal Ex. A3(Colly), statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of HC Malkhan Ex. A4, statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of HC Chander Mohan Ex. A5, statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of Ct. Pritam Ex. A6, FSL report Ex. A7, supplementary chargesheet by IO SI Amrish Giri Ex. Q1 and concerned witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses.
4. In order to establish the guilt of all accused persons, prosecution has examined six witnesses in all. In brief, the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses are discussed as under:
4.1 PW-1 complainant Retired ITO, Sh. A.K. Chugh deposed that in the month of July-2008, he took charge of the Ward 25(1), Vikas Bhawan, Delhi as Income Tax Officer. In the month of June-2008, two bogus refunds were issued during the tenure of his predecessor in the the name of assesses. Thereafter, he received an intimation that two PANs were transferred to some other ITO who informed him that there were two refunds which was issued from his Ward 25(1) which might be verified and also be seen why these PANs were transferred to the abovesaid ITO to his Ward. Whereas the jurisdiction of these PANs was related to Ward 25(1). After verification, it was noted that these refunds were issued in a bogus manner and the PANs were knowingly transferred to other wards, as to not coming in the knowledge of Ward 25(1), New Delhi. In such circumstances, a detailed inquiry was made about the abovesaid bogus issuance of refunds from his predecessor Sh. Anurag Sharma as well as the then Ex. Computer Tax Assistant/dealing assistant Sh. M. Nagmaiya who also confirmed that these refunds were bogusly issued. The statement of Sh. Durgesh was also recorded by him regarding the said bogus issues of refunds and the matter was also referred to the police FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 3/18 department. He further stated that in this matter bogus refunds were issued in two cases numbering 3. On 28.07.2008 a letter was received from ITO Ward 19(2) to verify refund, PAN of which was transferred to Ward 19(2) in the name of one Sh. Rupesh Khanna. Enquiry was made from Ward 25 (1) of which he was holding charge at that time. It was found that no return was filed by Mr. Rupesh Khanna. In fact, fictitious record was created on the electronic record of the department i.e. return, its fake receipt of filing details of taxes etc. Since, it was seen that refund was fraudulently issued, he immediately contacted the manager of the Centurion Bank of Punjab, Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, UP to stop the release of the refund amount from the said account. It was informed by the Manager to him that the entire amount of the refund was already withdrawn leaving a meagre amount of only Rs. 4500/- in the account which was opened in the name of Sh. Rupesh Khanna. On 01.08.2008, Sh. Durgesh Kumar who was dealing with the DATA entry of the returns employed with the Alankrit Technologies Ltd. and was working for the department attended his office and voluntarily gave a statement that the above refund of Sh. Rupesh Khanna was released by him with the connivance of one Sh. Sunil Kumar. However, despite asking him many times he did not give the particular of identity of Sh. Sunil Kumar. While recording his statement on 01.08.2008, he further disclosed that he issued two more bogus refunds in the name of Smt. Nirali Gupta amounting to Rs. 4 lacs each for assessment year. Accused Durgesh further stated that the user ID and password of the former ITO Ward 25 (1) was made by Sh.
M. Naagmaiya, the then Tax Assistant. After Durgesh admitted his statement categorically that he was involved in issue of the bogus refunds amounting to Rs. 13.31 Lacs. On the same day i.e. 01.08.2008, he filed a FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 4/18 written complaint against Durgesh, Sunil, Nirali Gupta and Rupesh Khanna at PS IP Estate alongwith copies of the statement recorded. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
4.2 PW-2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that in the year-2008, he was working as property dealer and in the same year he had given the second floor of the abovesaid property on rent to the accused/person namely Savit Kumar Anand and he was running a business of cloths stitching on the said floor. The accused Durgesh alongwith one other person used to visit Savit Kumar often (however I can not recall his name) for taking care of the said business. Once the IO of the present case visited him and shown him the photographs of Durgesh and other person and he was not able to identify him in the said photographs. The rented premises was vacated by the accused Durgesh and other persons. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for defence.
4.3 PW-3 Dilip Kumar deposed that he was working at ARTO office, Baghpat from the year-2022. He brought the relevant records with respect to the present case. As per the records, it was found the DL no. 878/CH/006 was not issued from their department. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
4.4 PW-4 Sh. Tek Chand deposed that he was residing in C-3/85, Nand Nagari Gali since his birth. His said house was registered in the name of his father. He did not know the person in the name of Rupesh Khanna and Narali Gupta. They never let out their house to any person. This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 5/18 4.5 PW-4A SI Sudesh Kumar(inadvertently mentioned as PW-4) deposed that on 02.08.2008, he was posted at P.S. I.P.Estate as HC. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with the IO/SI Arji Ram and went to West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara where at First Floor, accused Durgesh met them. IO made inquiry from him and he admitted his involvement in the present case with the associate namely Savit Anand and Shailender Kumar. Thereafter, IO arrested him and also personally searched him. IO also recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, accused had handed over the bundle of currency notes from his almirah to IO and same was taken in the police possession. Thereafter, he alongwith accused Durgesh and IO went to the house of accused Savit Kumar Anand. Where accused Savit met them and IO made inquiry from him and he admitted his involvement in the present case with the co- accused persons. Thereafter, IO arrested him and also personally searched him. IO also recorded his disclosure statement. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and both the accused persons went to the house of accused Shailender at Dilshad Garden. Where accused Shailender met them and IO made inquiry from him and he admitted his involvement in the present case with the co-accused persons. Thereafter, IO arrested him and also personally searched him. IO also recorded his disclosure statement. IO had recovered the cash of Rs. 11,000/- from the possession of accused Shailender and same was taken in police custody. Thereafter, they returned to PS alongwith the accused persons and case property and case property was deposited with MHC(M). IO had recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
4.6 PW-5 Inspector Anuj Aggarwal deposed that on 25.08.2008, he FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 6/18 was posted as SI at PS IP Estate. On that day, the investigation in the present FIR was marked to him. During the investigation, he gave notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to HDFC Bank, Shalimar Garden, UP. The reply to the notice was received and he seized the document produced by the branch Manager from HDFC Bank. The documents i.e. DL, PAN card, address proof were duly verified by him through the respective authorities, a letter was sent to MLO, Baghpat and Bulendshehar and the reply from the authority was endorsed on the notice. He recorded the statement of witnesses. On 29.09.2008, a letter was handed over to him by the complainant A.K. Chugh wherein the attested copy of the contract agreement between Alankrit Technologies Limited. After obtaining the permission from the court, he obtained specimen signatures of all the accused persons and the same were sent to the FSL alongwith the original documents. He recorded statement of witnesses u/s- 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for defence.
5. This is the entire prosecution evidence on record.
6. After prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein all the incriminating circumstances were offered to accused persons to which accused persons replied that they were falsely implicated in the matter. They did not opt to lead evidence in their defence.
7. I have heard the contentions advanced by Ld. APP for the State and also by Ld. Defence counsels representing all accused persons.
FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 7/18
8. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, all accused are liable to be convicted for offences under which they are charged.
9. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsels for all accused persons have vehemently argued that there is no document on record to show that all accused persons knew each other to show criminal conspiracy. It is further argued that brother of accused Durgesh namely Prempal is cited as recovery witness in seizure memo but he has not been cited as prosecution witness. It is further argued that there is no evidence to show that accused persons got opened the account in name of Ms. Nirali Gupta who is a female. It is further argued that the amount was disbursed after 23.03.2008 and that time accused Durgesh was not working with Income Tax Department. It is further argued that the FSL report did not indicate that the account opening forms were filled any of the accused persons. With these submissions, prayer is made for acquittal of all accused persons from the alleged offences.
10. The Hon'ble Supereme Court of India in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. Crl. Apeal no. 335/2024 observed The offence of cheating under Section 42 0 IPC:
10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 8/18 which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term'cheating'. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorised as 'cheating' if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, causing damage or harm to that person.
11.It is thus paramount that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (I) the deception 10 P a g e of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mensrea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement. There is no gainsaid that for the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made.
12.It is well known that every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 9/18 such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC. It must also be understood that a statement of fact is deemed 'deceitful' when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss.2 'Cheating' therefore, generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.
13.Theterm 'property' employed in Section 420 IPC has a well defined connotation.
Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value-is ordinarily understood as 'property'. It also describes one's exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term 2 P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 6th Edition, Vol. 1, pg.903.
11| P a g e 'moveable property' as, "intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth." Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth.
The offence of forgery under Sections 468 and 471 IPC: 21.The offence of 'forgery' FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 10/18 under Section 468 IPC postulates that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic document forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Whereas Section 471 IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any documents which he knows or has reason to believe it 15 | P a g e to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
22.There are two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of 'forgery', namely: (I) that the accused has fabricated an instrument; and
(ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury.
23.The offences of 'forgery' and 'cheating' intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. Having extensively addressed the aspect of dishonest intent in the context of 'cheating' under Section 420 IPC, it stands established that no dishonest intent can be made out against the Appellants. Our focus therefore will now be confined, for the sake of brevity, to the first element, i.e.,the preparation of a false document. The determination of FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 11/18 whether the Appellants prepared a false document, by forging Respondent No. 2's signature, however, cannot be even prima facie ascertained at this juncture.
Considering the primary ingredient of dishonest intention itself could not be established against the Appellants, the offence of forgery too, has no legs to stand.
It is also significant to highlight that the proceedings as against the concerned Passport Officer, who was implicated as Accused No. 4, already stand quashed. In such like situation and coupled with the nature of allegations, we are unable to appreciate as to why the Appellants be subjected to the ordeal of trial.
11. With respect to the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC, by its very nature, is seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence. Being a clandestine agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means, conspiracy is typically established through circumstantial evidence, patterns of conduct, and the cumulative interferences drawn from the interactions of the accused persons as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gurdeep Singh Vs. the State of Punjab(Crl. Appeal no. 705/2024).
12. Having discussed the position of law, it is observed that prosecution has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all the accused persons have committed the offence with the requisite mens rea and the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distinct from FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 12/18 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily goes to all accused persons.
13. The case of prosecution as per original complaint Ex. PW1/A is that the ITO Ward no. 19(2) while generating a refund report noticed an entry of PAN-BAYPK1795D of one Mr. Rupesh Khanna which was transferred from ward 25(1). The complainant is Income Tax Officer, ITO, ward 25(1). Upon the inquiry, it was observed that a non existent return of Mr. Rupesh Khanna was processed on 25.06.2008 using a fictitious receipt no. 130913 and no such return under the said receipt number was ever found. It was further observed that a refund of Rs. 4,54,303/- was determined and released on 25.06.2008 in one bank account belonging to one Rupesh Khanna and on 25.06.2008, the said PAN number was migrated to ward no. 19(2) without any reasons, solely to avoid its detection. It is further stated in the complaint that one Durgesh Kumar, Data Entry Operator appeared in the office of complainant and voluntarily gave a statement on 01.01.2008(however it appears to be a clerical error as the date of complaint is 01.08.2008) annexed alongwith the complaint and as per the statement of Durgesh, he processed the bogus refund in the connivance of one Mr. Sunil Kumar. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed for registration of FIR.
14. PW-1 complainant Sh. A.K. Chugh reiterated the version of complaint in his testimony. However, the record reflects that the fake return in PAN-BAYPK1795D of one Mr. Rupesh Khanna was processed on 25.06.2008 and the refund was released on the same day. However, as FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 13/18 per Ex. A2, the documents provided by Alankrit Technologies Ltd. regarding the employment period of accused Durgesh, accused Durgesh was working as Data Entry Operator on contract bases in Income Tax Department for feeding the data of ITR and it is further stated that accused Durgesh himself stopped coming for Alankrit w.e.f. 26.03.2008. Meaning thereby, accused Durgesh did not go to the Income Tax Office after 26.03.2008 as he had already left the services. However, as per the annexed statement with complaint Ex. PW1/A(Colly) allegedly written by accused Durgesh, the statement was given by him on 01.08.2008 and the statement was recorded in view of the departmental proceedings but no document has been filed on record to support the claim of complainant that departmental proceedings were initiated against accused Durgesh after termination of his contract and he appeared in the office of the complainant on 01.08.2008 voluntarily. The officials who took part in the said departmental proceedings were not cited as prosecution witness.
15. Further, the bogus return was processed on 25.06.2008 in name of one Rupesh Khanna and the employment contract of accused Durgesh was terminated w.e.f. 26.03.2008 meaning thereby he could not have processed the return of PAN-BAYPK1795D in name of Rupesh Khanna. It is further claimed by complainant that two other bogus returns of Rs. 4 lacs each against the PAN-AOMPG4862J in name of one Nirali Gupta were processed by accused Durgesh on 27.06.2008. Similarly, accused Durgesh could not have processed and released the refunds on 27.06.2008 as his contract was already terminated on 26.03.2008.
16. In the investigation, both the persons i.e. Rupesh Khanna and FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 14/18 Ms. Nirali Gupta were found to be fake. The account opening form of Ms. Nirali Gupta in Centurion Bank of Punjab was supported by one rent agreement and one DL issued from ARTO, Baghpat. PW-3 Sh. Dilip Kumar, Senior Assistant ARTO, Baghpat deposed that the DL number 878/CH/006(deposited by Nirali Gupta while opening the account) was not issued from the office. Similarly, the account opening form of Mr. Rupesh Khanna in Centurion Bank of Punjab was supported by one DL and one rent agreement. In the investigation, the rent agreement was found to be fake but the testimony of owner of the landlord could not be recorded as he got expired during the trial.
17. Both the account opening forms were sent to FSL for comparison with the handwriting of accused Durgesh, accused Savit and accused Shailender. However, as per the FSL report Ex. A7, no opinion could be found regarding the handwriting in account opening forms and specimen handwriting of all the accused persons. In the absence of expert opinion that the account opening forms were filled by accused persons, prosecution was required to prove through other modes that accused persons got opened the two fake bank accounts in name of Rupesh Khanna and Nirali Gupta but no other evidence such as CCTV Footage of the bank, CCTV Footage of the ATM has been produced on record.
18. Further, the prosecution has alleged that the all accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy cheated the Income Tax Department. In this regard, PW-2 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar deposed that in year 2008, he was working as property dealer and in the same year, he gave second floor of his property on the rent to accused Savit and accused FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 15/18 Durgesh used to visit accused Savit. He identified both accused Durgesh and Shailender by stating that they used to visit accused Savit. However, the fact that he gave 2nd floor to accused Savit on rent has not been proved as no rent agreement has been filed on record. Even no rent receipt has been filed on record. PW-2 Sanjeev Kumar admitted in his cross- examination that he did not give any rent receipt to the IO. Apart from this, no document whatsoever has been relied upon by prosecution to indicate that all accused persons were known to each other before registration of the present case.
19. Further, if the contents of complaint are believed to be true then also accused Durgesh stated that he issued bogus refund in connivance with one Sh. Sunil Kumar. Even complainant filed the complaint against Sunil Kumar but IO implicated accused Savit and Shailender without any plausible explanation. No connecting chain has been established as to how IO reached to accused Savit and Shailender, instead of suspect Sunil Kumar who was named by accused Durgesh. Therefore, prosecution could not establish that all accused persons had common intention and they worked according to the coordinated plan to cheat the complainant. It is settled law that the offence of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, nor is it necessary that all conspirators participate in every stage of the commission of offence. What is material is the existence of a prior agreement-expressed or implied-to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. However, in the present case such agreement or the prior meeting of minds could not be established by the prosecution.
FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 16/18
20. Coming further, nothing has been brought on record that accused Durgesh was having login ID and password to manufacture the bogus return. He was merely a Data Entry Operator, employed on a contractual basis. Furthermore, Ex. PW4/D is the seizure memo of the amount of Rs. 12,39,000/- which was recovered from possession of accused Durgesh. As per the seizure memo, the amount was recovered from the first floor house of accused Durgesh and Sh. Prempal, brother of accused Durgesh is cited as witness of the seizure but prosecution has not cited him as prosecution witness to prove the seizure of the amount. Further, there is no evidence at all, to show that the amount which was credited in the bank accounts of alleged Rupesh Khanna and Nirali Gupta was withdrawn by any of the accused persons. No withdrawal receipt from the bank, no video recording of ATM has been filed to prove that any of the accused persons withdrew the amount from the bank accounts of Rupesh Khanna and Nirali Gupta. Further, Ex. PW4/K is the seizure memo of amount of Rs. 11,000/- which was allegedly recovered from accused Shailender but the public witness Shrikant Singh in whose presence the seizure proceedings were conducted has not been cited as prosecution witness.
21. Therefore, in view of the observations in preceding paras, prosecution could not establish that all accused persons acted in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to cheat the Income Tax Department by opening two bank accounts in name of two fictitious persons. All the accused persons being male, could not have opened the bank account in name of Ms. Nirali Gupta. No investigation was conducted on this aspect. The chain of opening the account in name of alleged Nirali Gupta and FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 17/18 Rupesh Khanna with the accused persons could not be established. Nothing could be brought on record to show that these accused persons were active in getting the fake account opened in Centurion Bank of Punjab. More pertinently, nothing could be brought on record to establish that the amount from these alleged bank accounts were withdrawn by the accused persons and lastly that all accused persons used to know each other.
22. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused Durgesh, Savit and Shailender are acquitted for offences u/s 419/420/466/468/467/403/408/409/120-B IPC.
23. The bail bonds furnished by all accused at the commencement of trial, stands cancelled. Sureties stands discharged. The personal bonds furnished by all accused persons u/s 437A Cr.PC. shall remain in force for a period of six months or till the statutory period to assail this judgment expires (whichever is earlier). Documents, if any be returned to its rightful owner in accordance with rules. Endorsement, if any, also stands cancelled. Case property shall be disposed off after expiration of period for filing appeal and in case of appeal, as per direction of Ld. Appellate Court.
Case stands disposed off.
File be consigned to record room after due completion.
Digitally signed by PREETI PREETI Date: 2026.01.08
16:36:59 +0545
Announced in the Open Court (PREETI)
today i.e on 08th Day of Jan., 2026. JMFC-03/THC,CENTRAL:DELHI FIR No. 209/2008 State Vs. Durgesh and Ors. 18/18