The High Court of Delhi, through a bench comprising Justice Girish Kathpalia, has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a woman accused of forging government notifications, seals, and car stickers to feign an appointment as an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) in Himachal Pradesh and allegedly cheating her father-in-law out of nearly Rs 39 lakh.
Case Background
The case originates from FIR No. 427/2026, registered at Police Station Seemapuri under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(3), 339, and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), based on a complaint lodged by the accused applicant’s father-in-law.
According to the prosecution, after marrying the complainant’s son, the applicant, Nikita Mishra, started residing separately in Gurugram under the pretext that she had been selected as an ADM in Himachal Pradesh and was undergoing training. The prosecution further stated that she began living with one Vaibhav Tyagi as a live-in partner during this period.
To convince the complainant and others of her claims, the applicant allegedly transmitted via WhatsApp a forged appointment notification, claiming it was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, along with forged car stickers depicting her as “ADM, Lahaul and Spiti, HP.” On the basis of these forged documents, she allegedly induced the complainant to pay her money under various pretexts in installments totaling approximately Rs 39,00,000/-, which she then transferred to her friends.
Furthermore, emails were allegedly sent to the complainant through co-accused Anupam Kashyap, creating an impression that the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was scheduled to meet her, and even mailing a photograph while claiming that the wife of a High Court Judge had met with a serious accident.
Arguments Before the Court
Advocate Surya Nath Pandey, representing the applicant, argued that she was innocent and falsely implicated. He submitted that the FIR nowhere alleged that the complainant paid money directly to her. He further contended that, according to the FIR itself, the money paid by the complainant was towards a bribe to ensure she secured a job as a civil servant or a judge, making the complainant himself guilty of wrong. The counsel also argued that the transmission of the appointment notification from her mobile phone occurred because her device was hacked.
Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla, appearing for the State, contended that the allegations were extremely serious. He submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full extent of the crime and identify who helped the applicant in forging government letterheads, seals, and signatures of Himachal Pradesh Government officers.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the de facto complainant, also strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application, submitting that the applicant had gone to the extent of alleging that the complainant had raped her many years ago in order to pressurize him.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Addressing the argument raised by the applicant’s counsel regarding non-payment of money, the Court noted that the claim was contrary to the contents of the FIR.
Highlighting the gravity of the allegations, the Court observed:
“The larger question in the present case is not just the fraud allegedly played by the accused/applicant in falsely representing herself as ADM, but the manner in which she arranged the means to forge not just the appointment notification, but also the letter heads, the seals and the signatures of the concerned officer of Himachal Pradesh Government.“
The Court added that the forged car stickers representing her as an ADM also required investigation. Finding the requirement for custodial interrogation justified, the Court stated:
“In view of the overall circumstances, I do not find requirement expressed by the IO for custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant to be unjustified. It would certainly be necessary to carry out custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant.“
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nikita Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 2943/2026 & CRL.M.A. 22190/2026
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: August 12, 2026
