'Professional Services' Cannot Justify Actions Benefiting Professional Himself: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail For DMAT Fraud
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a finance company employee accused of fraudulently transferring shares belonging to 18 clients into his own DMAT account, observing that “professional services cannot extend to granting any benefit to the concerned professional himself.”
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order while dismissing a bail plea filed by the accused in connection with a FIR registered under Sections 318(4) (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 336(3) (forgery of valuable security, will or authority to transfer valuable security), 340(2) (using forged document or electronic record as genuine) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the accused, while working as a Computer Operator in a finance company, allegedly transferred shares of 18 clients into his own account through DMAT transactions after forging their signatures on Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS).
Counsel for the accused argued that the case pertained merely to civil liability and contended that Arora had acted only in his professional capacity as an employee of the finance company.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the accused had allegedly transferred shares of as many as 18 persons into his own account and had shown the victims as his relatives in official records. The prosecution also pointed to WhatsApp chats allegedly containing admissions by the accused regarding swindling ₹1.26 crore.
Rejecting the defence that the acts were part of professional services, the Court observed:
“The professional services cannot extend to granting any benefit to the concerned professional himself. Further, professional services do not extend to forging signatures of the client on the transaction slips, which is the allegation in the present case.”
While noting that charges were yet to be framed, the Court refrained from making detailed observations on the evidence. However, it held that considering the scale of the alleged fraud, it was not a fit case for grant of bail.
Appearance: Mr. N.C. Gupta and Mr. R.D. Singh, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with Inspector Ravinder Joshi and SI Vikas for Respondent
Case title: Varun Arora v. State
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1942/2026