'Would Send Wrong Signals': Delhi High Court Denies Bail In ₹30 Crore Investment Fraud Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused regular bail to Ravinder Singh Sidhu, accused of duping investors of over ₹30 crore through fraudulent investment schemes.

The prosecution alleges that Sidhu, who served as Managing Director of a company involved in the schemes, induced investors through false claims that the companies were registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and as Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that granting bail in such cases would send a wrong message to society. The court observed persons accused of cheating investors of crores of rupees should not be seen as escaping accountability merely by spending a few years in jail.

"In such situations, grant of bail, where the offence charged against the accused is punishable with even life imprisonment, would send wrong signals to the society at large that a person can easily get away by spending few years in jail and pocketing crores of rupees of the cheated persons.", It observed.

The case pertains to allegations that Sidhu and other accused induced investors to invest in schemes promising high returns or allotment of plots and flats. The prosecution alleged that the companies falsely represented themselves as authorised to mobilise public funds, were registered under SEBI regulations, and were registered as NBFCs with the RBI.

On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that the 56 FIRs registered against Sidhu across various States be merged on a state-wise basis. It ordered that the earliest FIR in each State would be treated as the lead FIR, while the remaining FIRs would be treated as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Seeking bail, Sidhu argued that he had been in custody since 2020 and that the trial had not commenced. He also submitted that some High Courts in other States had already granted him regular bail.

The State opposed the plea, citing the magnitude of the alleged fraud. It submitted that the offences were punishable with life imprisonment, the chargesheet had already been filed, and the matter was listed for consideration of charges on September 11, 2026. The prosecution also pointed out that several co-accused had been declared proclaimed offenders and continued to evade arrest.

Referring to the nature of the alleged fraud, the court noted that Sidhu had offered no explanation for floating the alleged fake investment schemes. It also observed that no proposal had been made to refund the money to the cheated investors.

"Not a whisper has been advanced on behalf of the accused/applicant justifying or even explaining as to why such fake schemes were floated, thereby making the innocent investors lose their hard earned money and/or any scheme offered by the accused/applicant to refund money to the cheated persons."

The court further noted that the defence had submitted that SEBI had taken over the assets of the company run by Sidhu. However, it observed that there was no explanation as to why the money had not been returned before that. It added that had it been an honest business venture, the invested money would have been fairly returned.

Holding that the chargesheet had already been filed and the matter was at the stage of framing of charge, the Court found it was not a fit case to grant bail and dismissed the application.

For Petitioner: Advocates Mohit Paul and Rangoli Seth

For Respondents: Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Inspector Suresh and SI Ramchandra Singh