Allahabad High Court

NEERAJ MANDIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The bail application was rejected as no case for bail was made out, given the applicant’s established complicity and distinct role in the alleged fraud.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Neeraj Mandiya, who was charged with offences under Sections 316(4), 118(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 of the BNS and Section 66‑D of the Information Technology Act for alleged participation in a large financial fraud. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that he was not named in the FIR, and that parity with co‑accused Ankur Tyagi, who had been granted bail, warranted his release. The State contended that the applicant was the authorized signatory of a bank account into which Rs 2.5 crore, siphoned from municipal funds, was transferred, establishing his complicity. The Court examined the investigation material, found a prima facie case against the applicant, and held that his role was distinct from the co‑accused, negating any parity ground. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision that parity alone is insufficient, the Court rejected the bail plea, deeming the applicant’s continued detention justified.

Issues considered

Whether the bail application of Neeraj Mandiya should be granted under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.
Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused who obtained bail is applicable in this case.
Whether a prima facie case of complicity exists against the applicant based on the investigation material.
Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal antecedents and pre‑trial detention period warrant bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 118, 316, 336, 338, 340
BNSS — s. 483
Information Technology Act — s. 66

Subjects

bail
financial fraud
cyber crime
parity
pre‑trial detention
Indian Penal Code
Information Technology Act
section 66‑D

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 600 of 2026

Neeraj Mandiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Paritosh Joshi, Vivek Chaturvedi

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Shri Ramendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State as also Shri Nipun
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Chaturvedi and
Shri Paritosh Joshi, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the
records.

The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on
behalf of the applicant Neeraj Mandiya has been filed seeking
enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2025, under Sections 316
(4), 118 (4), 336 (3), 340 (2), 338 of BNS and Section 66-D of I.T. Act,
Police Station Cyber Crime, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the
applicant before the Court below has been rejected by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated 9.12.2025
and the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.7.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very
case crime number for ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the applicant
has argued that the FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was
lodged against the named co-accused Vaibhav Kumar with the allegation
that Vaibhav Kumar, who was working with the recovery department of
Metro Group of Hospitals including the Metro Medical Service Ltd., as
Manager Recovery since 10.3.2022 and was responsible for Government
BAIL No. 600 of 2026
2

Panels recoveries including the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had left
the services of the hospital on 21.4.2025 without giving any handover and
without complying the terms of employment, was involved in financial
fraud to the tune of Rs.74,90,866/- by transferring the funds to that extent
into fraud accounts.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not
named in the FIR and his name has surfaced during the course of
investigation in the statement of the co-accused Vaibhav Kumar. It has
been argued that the applicant has never met Vaibhav Kumar and is not in
his acquaintance. The complicity of the applicant in the commission of
the crime is being established on the ground that co-accused Ankur Tyagi
had provided the bank account details of the applicant along with two
other bank account details to Vaibhav Kumar into which a sum of
Rs.74,90,866/- was transferred. It was also argued that one Subham had
persuaded the applicant to open the bank account in his name and in lieu
thereof paid Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant. It has also been
argued that there are no recoveries from the applicant and role assigned to
the applicant is identical to that of co-accused Ankur Tyagi, who has
already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 17.12.2025. The applicant also deserves to be released on bail on
the ground of parity. It has further been argued that charge sheet against
the applicant has already been filed on 16.9.2025 and cognizance has also
been taken by the Court concerned on 20.9.2025, however, charges have
yet not been framed. The applicant is in custody for nearly 09 months
without any criminal antecedents. The incarceration of the applicant
amounts to pre trial punishment. It is submitted that applicant shall
cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail
has been prayed for.

Per contra, learned AGA as also learned counsel for the first informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the
complicity of the applicant is established from the incriminating materials
collected by the investigating officer during the investigation.

Shri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the informant,
in opposition to the bail plea, submits that Metro Hospitals maintains its
BAIL No. 600 of 2026
3

bank account with HDFC Bank i.e. Bank Account No. 065184480000046
and no bank account with YES Bank. Investigation has revealed that
between December, 2023 to March, 2025, a total sum of Rs.13 crores had
been paid into what was assumed to be account of Metro Medical
Services Ltd., by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Only 04 crores had
been received in the HDFC Bank account and the amount of Rs.09 crores
had been misappropriated and siphoned into the three YES Bank accounts
which were in the names of M/s V&H Food Products, M/s Mandiya
Traders and M/s Elvie Techserve Pvt. Ltd., with respective authorized
signatories co-accused Sagar Chauhan, applicant-Neeraj Mandiya, co-
accused Harish Chopra and Ritu Sharma. During the period 2023-2025, a
sum of Rs.1,94,13,094/- was transferred from account of MCD to account
No. 080063400008352 in the name of M/s V&H Food Products,
Rs.2,50,48,011/- into bank account No. 080063400009404 in the name of
M/s Mandiya Traders, Rs.4,55,39,104/- into bank account No.
080063400004772 in the name of M/s Elvie Tech Serve Pvt. Ltd. It is
further submitted that the investigating officer during the investigation
has meticulously collected incriminating materials which establishes the
complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime and
accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application warrants outright
rejection.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given my
thoughtful consideration to the submissions made.

Prima facie, I find force in the submissions of Shri Nipun Singh, learned
Senior Counsel as also learned AGA.

From the perusal of documents brought on record, it is clear that during
the period of 2023-25 a sum of Rs.2,50,48,011/- was transferred from the
account of MCD into bank account No. 080063400009404 in the name of
M/s Mandiya Traders, of which the applicant, namely, Neeraj Mandiya is
the authorized signatory. The applicant has been hand in glove with the
main accused Vaibhav Kumar in the commission of alleged crime.

Learned counsel for the applicant also has pressed the bail plea on the
ground of parity with Ankur Tyagi co-accused who has been enlarged on
BAIL No. 600 of 2026
4

bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.12.2025 in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application No. 28843 of 2025.

In the opinion of the Court, no case of parity with co-accused Ankur
Tyagi can be said to be made out as the applicant has distinct role. The
applicant is admittedly a beneficiary of the monies transferred
fraudulently into his bank account. The complicity of the applicant is
established from the materials collected during investigation. The Apex
Court very recently in the case of Sagar versus State of U.P. and another
reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1155 while setting aside an order granting
bail to a co-accused on the ground of parity was pleased to observe that
parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted. Parity once
considered must focus on the position of the accused which is met not
only by involvement in the same offence, but on their role in the crime.
The Court must strike a balance and exercise discretion judiciously
considering factors like the nature of the allegations, severity of
punishment, criminal antecedents and a prima facie case.

Considering all the above, no case for bail is made out. Rejected.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 11, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…