Mr.Harsh Jaidka, Mr. Meghav Chawla and Mr.Aadarsh Yadav, Advocates v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 1 of 8 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 and Crl.M.A. 21503/2025 ANKIT SINGHAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Harsh Jaidka, Mr. Meghav Chawla and Mr.Aadarsh Yadav, Advocates versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State with SI Ashish, PS Roop Nagar Mr.Manisha Parmar, Ms.Shreya Bhola and Ms.Anjali, Advocates for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA O R D E R % 01.09.2025 1. The instant bail application is, inter alia, for grant of regular bail arising out of FIR No.0386/2023, dated 21.10.2023, for alleged offences under Section 420 of the IPC registered at PS Roop Nagar, Delhi. 2. Briefly speaking, per FIR, the case set up by the prosecution/complainant is that the complainant is running a restaurant under the name and style of “B Lounge” at Roop Nagar, Delhi, and has been acquainted with the accused Ankit Singhal for the last 2–3 years. It is alleged that the accused represented himself to be the sole and absolute owner of a freehold property bearing No. 6/11665, Block-24, Roshanara This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 2 of 8 Extension Scheme, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, measuring 200 sq. yds. (upper ground floor without terrace rights), and assured that the property was free from all encumbrances. 2.1 To strengthen this representation, the accused showed a registered sale deed in the name of his late mother, which was projected to be genuine. 2.2 On the basis of this assurance, the total sale consideration was settled at ₹2.25 crores, and the complainant made payments totalling ₹80 lakhs, consisting of ₹42.50 lakhs by RTGS between 02.08.2023 and 05.08.2023, ₹20 lakhs through bank transfer on 01.09.2023, and ₹17.50 lakhs in cash on the same day. 2.3 On 29.08.2023, an Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties in the complainant’s office, and on 01.09.2023, a possession letter was executed and physical possession of the property was handed over. 2.4 On 12.09.2023, when certain official orders were found pasted on the property, the complainant made inquiries and discovered that the property had already been mortgaged with HDB Financial Services, contrary to the representations of the accused. 2.5 The complainant also came across a judicial order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned ACMM, which recorded that the original title deed of the property had been deposited with HDB Financial Services, thereby proving that the document shown by the accused was forged. 2.6 It is thus alleged that by using forged documents and making false representations, the accused induced the complainant to part with ₹80 lakhs, committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 3 of 8 perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue on lines of grounds taken in the petition inter alia urging as below:- 4.1 That the applicant applicant/accused has been in judicial custody since 22.01.2024 and has already undergone approximately 1 year 7 months of incarceration. That the charge sheet has been filed and charges have been framed and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. 4.2 That there are 17 prosecution witnesses, yet not even a single witness has been examined till date. The trial is likely to take considerable time and the applicant cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years only. 4.3 That the applicant has been charged under Section 420 IPC (Section 318 B.N.S), punishable with a maximum of seven years. The Learned Counsel takes support of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amesh Kumar v. State (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein it was held that routine arrests in offences punishable up to seven years should be avoided. 4.4 The Learned Counsel further takes support of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 3816/2024 (decided on 13.09.2024), wherein it has been laid down that prolonged incarceration pending trial amounts to unjust deprivation of liberty, and courts must lean towards granting bail save and except where release would seriously prejudice the trial. 4.5 That the learned Sessions Court failed to assign any cogent reasons for dismissing the bail application earlier filed by the applicant. That the order of the Ld. Sessions Court dismissing bail is based on conjectures and surmises, without assigning proper reasons, and overlooks the principle that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 4 of 8 bail is a rule and jail is an exception. 4.6 That the grant of bail cannot be equated with recovery proceedings, and in the present case, where it is the accused who has been cheated at the hands of the complainant, he cannot be allowed to suffer imprisonment for an indefinite period. 4.7 That the counsel further submits that after the registration of the FIR, no fresh investigation was carried out. Whatever material was collected earlier during enquiry formed the basis of filing of the charge sheet. The complainant alleged to have paid ₹62.50 lakh through bank and ₹17.50 lakh in cash. It is submitted by the Counsel that the allegation of cash payment of ₹17.50 lakhs is unsupported by evidence and the receipts are unsigned by the accused. Moreover, though the IO obtained specimen signatures of the applicant for sending to CFSL, no effort was made to investigate whether the complainant in fact possessed ₹17.50 lakh in cash or why such a huge payment was made in cash contrary to IT Rules. 4.8 That the complainant was aware of the outstanding bank loan on the property, amounting to ₹1.75 crore, yet he did not disclose the same in the alleged agreement. The property valued at ₹2.25 crore was agreed to be sold, which would have saved only ₹50 lakh for the applicant, leaving no scope to infer dishonest intention. Rather, the applicant has incurred a loss of about ₹50 lakh as the property was subsequently auctioned by the bank at less than ₹2 crore because the applicant was in judicial custody and could not approach the Court in time. The complainant, on the other hand, paid only ₹62.50 lakh yet took possession of property worth ₹2.25 crore, thereby cheating the applicant. 4.9 That the applicant never intended to cheat the complainant; instead, it This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 5 of 8 was the complainant who fabricated a forged receipt of ₹17.50 lakh and filed a false complaint. When the title deeds were with the bank, there was no occasion for the applicant to show any forged documents. The IO did not investigate this aspect. 4.10 That the applicant has been falsely implicated. The learned Counsel submits that prior to the applicant’s arrest, the applicant was called to the police station for settlement of the matter. On his refusal to succumb to the complainant’s illegal demands, he was arrested the very next day. 4.11 That the IO conducted the investigation in a biased manner by filing status reports, misrepresenting that the accused was declared a proclaimed offender in NI Act cases. Thereby, misleading the Court. 4.12 It is submitted by the Counsel that the IO wrongly mentioned 11 cases against the applicant. Out of these, several were either settled or unrelated to him. For instance, FIR No. 37/2011 under Sections 325/34 IPC had been settled in Lok Adalat, and FIR No. 7/2011 under Section 498A IPC filed by his wife is one in which he is already on bail. 4.13 That the SHO of the concerned area is allegedly acting in collusion with land grabbers who intend to usurp the properties of the applicant by implicating him in false cases. 4.14 That against the dismissal of his application by the learned Sessions Court, the applicant filed Bail Application No. 3463/2024 before this Court. However, due to procedural defects pointed out by the State, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh vide order dated 16.12.2024. 4.15 That the trial is likely to be prolonged and the complainant may deliberately delay proceedings. The applicant has already suffered immense This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 6 of 8 financial loss, is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and undertakes to cooperate fully with the trial. There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence since the charge sheet has already been filed. 4.16 That the applicant reserves his civil rights against the bank and his continued detention in the present criminal case amounts to a miscarriage of justice. 5. Bail of the petitioner is being strenuously opposed by the complainant. Contention is that the applicant tried to mislead this Court by making an offer of payment of money pursuant to which he was to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- as first instalment (total being Rs.70,00,000/-) and subsequently retracted from the same. She would submit that interim bail was granted on the condition of depositing the money. Since he has not done the needful, therefore, he is not entitled to seek any concession at this stage. 5.1 In support of her arguments, the complainant cites the judgment of Supreme Court in Gajanan Dattatray Gore V. State of Maharashtra and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 stating that in similar matter where the accused had made an offer and then did not comply with, the Supreme Court did not grant him bail 5.2 Agreeing with the above submissions, the learned APP also argues that the applicant is not entitled to any relief at this stage, as there remains a genuine risk of him absconding or tampering with the evidence. 6. Having heard, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Let us see how. 7. In response to a specific query from this Court, the learned APP for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 7 of 8 the State has confirmed that the chargesheet has already been filed, and the investigation, insofar as the applicant is concerned, stands concluded. Hence, custodial interrogation is no longer required. Moreover, the prosecution has already seized all relevant documentary and electronic evidence qua applicant herein, making the possibility of evidence tampering highly remote. 8. As regards non-payment of Rs.10,00,000/-, no doubt, in abstract on first glance, the aforesaid argument may seem attractive, however, I am not able to persuade myself with the same. The said offer was voluntarily made by the petitioner being mindful that the only way for him to secure his liberty was payment of money. Even though perhaps, on the day when he offered, he did not have the means to do so, but in the earnest hope that he would be able to manage the money, he volunteered to deposit Rs.70,00,000/- which as it turns out, he could not lateron manage. 9. Mere voluntaring to pay would not amount to any confession of guilt and/or put the applicant in a position so as to treat him more adversarial viz a vis had he not volunteered. 10. Assuming, for the sake of argument that there was no such offer by the petitioner, I am of the view that given the stage of the trial, which is proceeding on a snail’s pace, coupled with the duration of the incarceration already undergone, and the fact that there is no likelihood of tampering of the evidence which is documentary in nature and has already been seized, I am of the view that, at this stage, he is entitled to bail. 11. The applicant joined the investigation, and appeared before investigating authorities whenever required. There has been no attempt by the applicant to delay or obstruct the investigation, reflecting his bona fide This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/09/2025 at 12:25:09 BAIL APPLN. 4768/2024 Page 8 of 8 conduct. 12. Further continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, especially when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. A prolonged pre-trial detention becomes punitive even before conviction, and violates the fundamental rule i.e. bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly when the accused does not pose a flight risk or a threat to the integrity of the trial. 13. As an upshot and taking a wholesome view of the matter, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Judge concerned as the case may be, subject to the other usual conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court/Duty Court. 14. Any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of disposing of the instant bail application and not to be construed, in any manner, as any expression on the merits of the pending case and the trial shall proceed without being influenced either way by the same. 15. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of. ARUN MONGA, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/SV