No bail to Computer Operator Who Allegedly Forged Signatures to Transfer Shares of Clients Into His Own Account
Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the “professional services” defence, holding that professional capacity cannot justify forging client signatures or diverting shares to one’s own account.
The High Court of Delhi on 18 May 2026 dismissed the regular bail application of Varun Arora, a computer operator at a finance company, who is accused of fraudulently transferring shares belonging to 18 clients into his own DMAT account by forging their signatures on Delivery Instruction Slips (DIS). Justice Girish Kathpalia, sitting singly, found that the scale of the alleged fraud , spanning 18 victims and an admitted sum of Rs 1,26,00,000, combined with the pre-charge stage of the trial, made the case unfit for bail. The court squarely rejected the argument that the accused had acted only in a professional capacity and bore no criminal liability.
The Allegation: Shares of 18 Clients Diverted Through Forged DIS
The case arises from FIR No. 344/2025 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden. The offences alleged are under Section 318(4), Section 336(3), Section 340(2), and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, Arora, while employed as a computer operator at a finance company, obtained DMAT transfers of shares held by 18 clients of that company. The shares were moved into his own account. To execute the transfers, he is alleged to have forged the signatures of those clients on the DIS which is the standard instruction documents used to authorise share transfers. The prosecution further alleged that Arora recorded the fraud victims as his relatives in company records, and that WhatsApp chats recovered during investigation contain his admission of having swindled away Rs 1,26,00,000.
The Defence: Civil Liability, No Dishonest Intent, No Recovery
Counsel for Arora advanced four arguments in support of bail. First, there was no allegation of inducement or dishonest intention, making this at most a civil liability and not a criminal matter warranting detention. Second, Arora had acted entirely in his professional capacity as an employee of the finance company, and his liberty could not be curtailed for acts done in that role. Third, there was no forgery on his part. Fourth, since nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession, bail ought to be granted.
Why the Court Rejected the Professional Services Argument
Justice Kathpalia was unpersuaded by the professional capacity defence. The court reasoned that professional services, by their very nature, cannot extend to conferring a benefit on the professional himself. Transferring clients’ shares into one’s own account is not a service rendered to those clients rather it is a diversion for personal gain.
The court went further on the forgery point. It held that professional services do not extend to forging signatures of the client on the transaction slips, which is precisely what is alleged here. The DIS forgery allegation directly contradicted the claim that Arora had done nothing beyond his job description.
On the stage of trial, the court noted that charges had not yet been framed and declined to comment in detail on the material gathered by the investigating agency. It confined itself to observing that the expanse of the alleged fraud 18 persons affected and the current stage of proceedings together made this a case where bail should not be granted.
Outcome
Bail Application No. 1942/2026 and the accompanying Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 15771/2026 were both dismissed. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for communication to the accused.