The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by disqualified Madhya Pradesh Congress MLA Rajendra Bharti, seeking a stay on his conviction in a cheating case involving the forging of bank records to obtain illegal interest payments between 1998 and 2011. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 643]

Justice Manoj Jain rejected the plea.

A detailed order is awaited.

The Court had stayed the three-year sentence awarded to Bharti on April 28.

Bharti's counsel had said that once his conviction is stayed, there would be no basis for his disqualification and thus, his assembly seat would not be declared vacant.

Following his conviction, Bharti was disqualified from the state legislative assembly. The Vidhan Sabha had issued a notification annulling his membership from the Datia assembly seat.

In his plea, Bharti has challenged the trial court order of April 01 convicting him in the case and the order of April 02 sentencing him to three years of imprisonment.

As per the complaint filed in 2015 by the District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Datia, Bharti, the then Chairman of the Bank, influenced bank officials to extend the term of the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 lakh from 3 years to 15 years.

Further, it was alleged that the same was done with the intention to benefit Shri Shyam Sunder Shyam Public Unity and Community Development Organization Trust to the extent that the organization would benefit through interest at 13.5% per annum for an additional 12 years.

On October 07, 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the case pending before the MP Court to Tiz Hazari, Presiding Judge. The case was eventually transferred to Rouse Avenue Courts.

The trial court had also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Bharti and former cashier Raghuvir Sharan Prajapati. They both were convicted for the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of a valuable security, forgery for cheating and using a forged document as genuine.

Vide the impugned order, the special judge had rejected the plea put forth by the accused that they, as public servants, could not be prosecuted for discharge of official functions without government sanction. The Court had said that cheating and forgery are "dereliction of duty rather than the performance of a duty".

The judge had observed that Bharti and Prajapati, and possibly other unknown persons, conspired to cheat the complainant bank by continuing to draw interest at a much higher rate beyond 2011, even though their fixed deposit had an initial tenure of three years.

The trial court had rejected Bharti's argument that he was politically targeted or that the prosecution was politically motivated.

Instead, the judge said, it was a case involving the forgery of bank documents and the cheating of a bank between 1998 and 2011, long before the alleged political rivalry claimed by Bharti.

Title: Rajendra Bharti v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 643