The High Court of Delhi has granted anticipatory bail to 71-year-old Ghisulal Jain, a majority partner of Fienza Ceramics LLP, in connection with an alleged investment fraud and cheating case involving over ₹1.22 crore.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed that criminal proceedings should not be used as a recovery mechanism and noted that the petitioner had joined the LLP long after the alleged transactions took place, with no evidence of direct communication between him and the complainant.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 128/2025, registered at Police Station Tughlak Road, New Delhi. The FIR was registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The prosecution’s case was initiated on a complaint by Ravinder Dutt Sharma, who alleged that in February 2023, his nephew, Ashok Sharma, induced him to invest ₹2,50,00,000/- for a 20% stake in Fienza Ceramics LLP. The complainant alleged that Ashok Sharma, alongside his son Shinoy Sharma, represented that existing partners were liquidating 70% of their shareholding.
Following these representations, the complainant and his son visited Morbi, Gujarat, where they met other accused persons—Kalpesh Jayantilal Doshi, Praveen Kumar, and Rajnikant Govind Bhai Dayani—who allegedly reiterated the transfer offer. Consequently, between August and November 2023, the complainant and his sister-in-law transferred ₹98,00,000/- into the LLP’s State Bank of India account. The complainant also allegedly paid ₹21,00,000/- in cash to Ashok Sharma and ₹4,92,000/- to an associate, Dipesh Patel, making a total transfer of approximately ₹1,22,73,762/-.
When the promised shareholding was not transferred nor the amount refunded, the complaint was filed, leading to the registration of the FIR on December 14, 2025.
During the investigation, Registrar of Companies records revealed that the petitioner, Ghisulal Jain, became a designated partner with a 62% stake only on March 3, 2025. In the LLP’s balance sheets for FY 2023-2024 and FY 2024-2025, the complainant’s transferred amount of ₹98,00,000/- was continuously reflected as an “unsecured loan.”
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was previously rejected by the Sessions Court on March 20, 2026, after which he approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhay Gupta, presented the following arguments:
- The petitioner became a designated partner of the LLP on March 3, 2025, whereas the alleged offences and transfers occurred between April and November 2023.
- No specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR, and the matter is essentially a civil dispute being given a “criminal colour.”
- The primary allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy are directed against Ashok Sharma and Shinoy Sharma, who are relatives of the complainant and not partners of the LLP.
- WhatsApp chat records and communications relied upon by the prosecution do not feature the petitioner.
- The complainant contributed less than half of the required ₹2.5 crore investment capital.
- The petitioner is 71 years of age, has no prior criminal antecedents, and has fully cooperated with the investigation.
For the Respondent (State and Complainant):
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, and Senior Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Mohit Mathur, opposed the bail application:
- They argued that the allegations are serious and the investigation is at a nascent stage.
- Since the petitioner became a majority partner (62% share) on March 3, 2025, he “ought to have known the nature of the transactions” between the complainant and the LLP.
- The LLP’s balance sheet for FY 2024-2025, filed by the current partners including the petitioner, continued to show the ₹98,00,000/- as an “unsecured loan,” indicating the petitioner’s involvement in a conspiracy to obscure financial dealings.
Notably, upon instructions from the Investigating Officer, the State accepted that there was no material showing any direct contact between the petitioner and the complainant or his family.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Prateek Jalan took note of the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation pursuant to interim protection granted on March 28, 2026, and there were no allegations of misuse of liberty.
On the nature of the dispute, the court referred to the established precedent in Ramesh Kumar v. State (2023) 7 SCC 461, which, relying on Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar (2023 SCC OnLine SC 51),:
“…reiterates the settled position that criminal proceedings ought not to be employed as a tool for recovery of money.”
The court noted that the petitioner became a partner in the LLP subsequent to the alleged transaction period, and there was no material linking him directly to the complainant. The allegations of inducement were primarily directed at the other co-accused.
Addressing the prosecution’s reliance on the balance sheet entry showing the investment as an “unsecured loan”, the Court observed:
“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.”
Furthermore, the High Court raised questions regarding the extent of an LLP partner’s liability and prior knowledge under these circumstances:
“A question may also arise, in the context of an LLP, as to whether the petitioner can be liable for the amount at all, and as to whether he had knowledge or involvement in the transactions prior to his appointment, especially in absence of any material indicating otherwise.”
The Decision
Considering the petitioner’s advanced age of 71 years, the documentary nature of the evidence, his clean record, and his cooperation with the investigation, the High Court held that the case was fit for granting anticipatory bail.
The court directed that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner must report to and cooperate with the IO as required.
- The petitioner shall not influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or induce anyone acquainted with the facts of the case.
- The petitioner must keep his registered mobile number operational and active at all times, with no change of number without prior intimation.
- The petitioner must provide his residential address and not change it without prior notice to the IO.
- The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the proceedings.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ghisulal Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1222/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9495-96/2026
- Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
- Date: 19.05.2026
