BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 1 of 6 $~92 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 ARNAB BANERJEE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Pandey, Advocate. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI Ashok. Mr. M.R. Singh, Mr. Abhinav Mishra and Ms. Badre Munir, Advocates for complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 10.07.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 279/2025 dated 30.06.2025, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South, District South-West, Delhi, under Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant, the parties were referred to mediation vide order dated 19.08.2025. On 22.08.2025, the Court noted as follows: “5. The genesis of the dispute arises from an Agreement to Sell dated 15.03.2025 executed between the applicant (and his wife Rimi Banerjee) and the complainant Ashok Kumar Nigam for sale of Flat No. 77, Block Kaveri, Pocket-6, Sector-D, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 1.40 crores. 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 16:08:12 BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 2 of 6 6. An advance of Rs. 97,11,000/- was paid by the complainant, out of which Rs. 35,00,000/- was credited to the wife’s account and the balance to the applicant’s account. As the property was mortgaged with TATA Capital, the parties executed an Extension Agreement on 21.04.2025, extending the date of execution of the sale deed to 31.05.2025. 7. On 27.05.2025, the complainant issued a legal notice, demanding execution of the sale deed or refund of the advance. Thereafter, the applicant refunded Rs. 40,00,000/- in two instalments (29.05.2025 and 02.06.2025) and sought time to pay the remaining balance. 8. Pursuant to the above, the complainant lodged the present FIR No. 279/2025 on 30.06.2025, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, and asserting that the applicant and his wife had dishonest intention from the outset and had become untraceable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, is an MBBS doctor with established social roots, living at a verifiable address, and there is no risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. He has already refunded a substantial sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- to the complainant, thereby negating any allegation of dishonest intent. 10. It is further submitted that pursuant to the previous order passed by this Court, the parties to the present dispute appeared before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and have entered into a settlement agreement dated 22.08.2025. A copy of the same has been handed over in Court today, during the course of proceedings. The same is taken on record. It is submitted that since the parties have entered into a settlement wherein terms of repayment has been mentioned, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in custody as he would need time to arrange the money for repayment. Thus, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 11. Heard. Issue notice. 12. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State accepts notice and submits that a substantial amount is involved in the present petition and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required for proper investigation, and therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 13. Complainant is present in court today and has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled, however, it is pointed out that as per the schedule of payment, the date of last payment is on or before 01.03.2026. In light of the same, he further submits that the petitioner may be released on interim bail in order to enable him to arrange 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 13/07/2026 at 16:08:12 BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 3 of 6 repayment of the balance amount in terms of the settlement agreement. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the submissions advanced, this Court notes that the complainant has expressly submitted that the petitioner may be released on interim bail to make arrangement of the funds in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 22.08.2025. It is also noted that the petitioner has already refunded a substantial portion to the complainant. 15. As per the terms of the settlement agreement, out of the total disputed amount, only a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- remains pending towards the principal amount, along with Rs. 15,00,000/- payable as damages and compensation. The settlement stipulates that the petitioner shall discharge his liability by making payment of a total sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- as full and final settlement, in the following manner: (i) Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid on or before 10.09.2025, (ii) Rs. 30,00,000/- to be paid on or before 28.10.2025, and (iii) Rs. 15,00,000/- towards damages and compensation to be paid on or before 01.03.2026. This Court further notes that the schedule of repayment extends over a considerable period, concluding only by March, 2026. 16. In light of the fact that the petitioner has already refunded a Rs. 57,00,000/-, has entered into a lawful settlement, and would require time to arrange the balance amounts in accordance with the agreed timeline, the Court is of the view that continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. 17. Accordingly, considering the submissions of the complainant, the substantial payment already effected, the bona fide demonstrated by the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner needs adequate time to comply with the settlement terms, this Court deems it appropriate to release the petitioner on interim bail till the next date of hearing. The grant of interim bail shall, however, be subject to the following conditions: a. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. b. The petitioner shall adhere strictly to the terms of the settlement agreement dated 22.08.2025 and shall ensure compliance with the schedule of repayment recorded therein. c. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer concerned on 15th day of every month, till further 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 16:08:12 BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 4 of 6 orders. d. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and keep updated his residential address, contact telephone numbers and email details. e. The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. f. The petitioner shall not, in any manner, influence or try to influence the complainant, witnesses, or tamper with the evidence.” [Emphasis supplied.] 3. Interim protection was extended by order dated 12.09.2025, in view of the fact that the petitioner and his wife were making payments. However, by order dated 08.12.2025, it was recorded that a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- remains outstanding, and the parties were directed to appear in person. A further opportunity to settle the disputes was granted by orders dated 11.02.2026, 25.04.2026, and 05.05.2026, noting that some further payments had been made. 4. However, by order dated 26.05.2026, the Court noted that payment of the balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- had not been made. The Court recorded as follows: “7. Mr. Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, accepts that the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- has not been made even now. He, therefore, seeks to argue the application for regular bail on merits. 8. The petitioner has remained on interim bail in terms of the aforesaid order dated 22.08.2025. The order of interim bail was originally granted until the next date of hearing, and has been similarly continued since. The last extension therefore lapses today. 9. The petitioner is not present before this Court. He is, therefore, directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court, and file proof of surrender before this Court, after which the present application may be taken up for hearing.” [Emphasis supplied.] 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 16:08:12 BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 5 of 6 5. On the next date of hearing [i.e., 07.07.2026], the petitioner remained unrepresented before the Court. He had also not surrendered before the Trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear on the first call today. On the second call, it is accepted that the petitioner has not surrendered in terms of the directions of this Court. However, it is sought to be argued that the petitioner has now made payment in terms of the settlement. 7. Mr. M.R. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, states that a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been received, and three post-dated cheques of Rs. 3,00,000/- each have also been paid. 8. It is evident that the petitioner has remained on interim bail for a substantial period of time on the ground of settlement, and several opportunities have been granted to him to make payment of the settlement amount. However, he failed to do so. Even now, the settlement agreement, which contemplated payment of the entire settlement amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- by 01.03.2026, has not been fully complied with. 9. On 26.05.2026, a specific request was made to the Court to hear the case on merits, rather than complying with the settlement. For this purpose, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to surrender. He has not surrendered, and is not physically present before the Court today, either. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that bail is not to be granted or declined, on the basis of compliance with settlement conditions or deposit of money. The application for regular bail could have been taken up, if he had surrendered before the Trial Court, or was physically present before 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 16:08:12 BAIL APPLN. 3141/2025 Page 6 of 6 this Court and had submitted to the custody of this Court, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2014) 16 SCC 623, paragraph 16]. However, he has failed to do so, and remains at large despite the period of interim bail, and extension thereof, having lapsed. 11. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. 12. It is open to the petitioner to seek regular bail afresh before the Trial Court upon surrender. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the parties in any future application are left open. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 10, 2026 SS/KA/ 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 16:08:12