$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2779/2025 RAJESH KUMAR ..... Applicant Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Sahil Kakkar, Ms. Anshika Juneja and Mr. Abeer Shandilya, Advs. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State Mr. Akshya and Mr. Praveen Kr., Advs. for complainant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 09.07.2026 1. By virtue of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.157/2025 dated 02.04.2025 registered at PS.: Uttam Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 318/336/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. As per FIR, a written complaint dated 02.04.2025 was received from one Om Kumar Balyan, alleging that the accused, Suraj and the present applicant induced him to purchase property bearing No. 35A, Khasra Nos. 68/24 & 68/25, Village Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, admeasuring 100 sq. yds., for a sale consideration of Rs.51,50,000/-, and received an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- as well. Though the complainant started construction work on the aforesaid property soon thereafter, the same was stopped by one Mr. Mohan Singh stating that he is the registered owner of the aforesaid property and possesses valid documents to such effect. The 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 13/07/2026 at 15:12:23 same resulted in registration of the present FIR on the basis of a complaint made by him. 3. During investigation, the complainant produced proof of payment showing transfers of Rs.4,00,000/- on 04.07.2024 to the account of the present applicant, Rs.3,99,000/- on 06.07.2024 to the account of accused Suraj, and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash as recorded in the Agreement to Sell. At the same time, Mr. Mohan Singh also produced original registered Sale Deeds showing himself as the owner of Khasra No. 68/24 measuring 200 sq. yds., out of which though 100 sq. yds. had already been sold to one Sunil Kumar Mittal in the year 2004, the remaining 100 sq. yds. continued belonging to him. 4. In this factual backdrop, this Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned APP. 5. At the outset, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryana:(2023) 8 SCC 181 29 land and property fraud remains a significant concern in the country, involving practices such as forged documents, false ownership, fabricated sale deeds, and tampering with land records. Such fraudulent activities often exploit vulnerable sections of the society, which causes a great deal of financial hardships and legal disputes eventually, weakening the public trust and hindering with the economic growth of the country, thus grant of anticipatory bail in such cases must be exercised sparingly. 6. As borne out from the facts herein, though the applicant has expressed his inability to produce original documents qua the property in question on account of having lost the same during travel on 26.07.2024, which as per him is substantiated with placing reliance upon the NCR of 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 13/07/2026 at 15:12:23 even date, however, as per the verification conducted by the prosecution, the contents of the said NCR are not only vague but also do not explicitly specify as to which documents were lost, which prima facie casts aspersions upon the story of the applicant. 7. Moreover, during interrogation all that the applicant has produced are mere photocopies of the property documents as he has expressed inability to produce the original chain of documents. He has also failed to justify the fact that the alleged sale consideration of Rs.38,70,000/- i.e. on which the said property is alleged to have been purchased by him from the erstwhile owner is way below the market rate of the concerned area. All the above do not inspire confidence in this Court. 8. Thus, cumulatively taking note of the overall facts and circumstances involved herein, the nature and gravity of the accusations levelled against the applicant, the severity of the punishment prescribed in the event of conviction and particularly, since the original chain of documents, the money trail and involvement of co-conspirators is yet to be unearthed, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required. 9. As such, there is no case for granting an anticipatory bail to the applicant, and the present application is thus dismissed. 10. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits, if any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved. SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 9, 2026/bh/DA 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 13/07/2026 at 15:12:23