$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 5022/2025 AMARJEET SINGH DHILLON .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Tyagi, Mr. Rajneesh Tyagi, Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Ms.Nidhi Bhardwaj and Ms. Ruchika Dhingra, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for State. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [erstwhile Section 439 of Cr.P.C] seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.306/2020 registered at PS Lajpat Nagar qua the offence punishable under Section 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, the investigation has been carried out and the charge sheet has been submitted. He also submits that out of 20 witnesses only 1 witness has been examined, the trial will take sufficient time in its completion, the applicant has already suffered 4 years 4 months 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 22/07/2026 at 11:46:00 incarceration as he is in custody since 31.03.2022, out of 5 accused persons; one has passed away; two accused persons were charge sheeted without arrest and one accused person has already been enlarged on regular bail. 3. Submissions made on behalf of the applicant are vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant. They contend that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature. The applicant has duped the private complainant on the pretext of sale of the property upon which the applicant did not have any rights thereto. It is thus, contended that merely on the ground of long incarceration, the application is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 5. The case of the prosecution would indicate that on the basis of the complaint made by Mr. Sanjay Syal, who was in search of a property, the investigation was carried out and the FIR was registered. It was contended that Mr. Sanjay Syal approached one Anil Seth, a property dealer, who further introduced the complainant to one Suresh Kumar Sharma, another property dealer, who during a discussion, mentioned about the sale of a property bearing No.50, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi, which was owned by Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon. 6. It was stated that the said Jagdev Singh Dhillon had executed a power of attorney in favour of the present applicant, who is allegedly stated to be the brother-in-law of Jagdev Singh Dhillon for the purpose of selling the said property and to enter into an Agreement to Sell dated 03.12.2018 for a total sell consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/-. A balance payment of Rs.84,50,000/- as a part consideration for the purchase of the said property 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 22/07/2026 at 11:46:00 was paid to the applicant and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of sale deed. The ID of Jagdev Singh Dhillon was found to be fake and eventually, it was realized by the complainant that he was cheated by the present applicant on the pretext of the applicant having rights to execute the sale deed. The complainant also came across a Public Notice dated 26.11.2019 in Nav Bharat Times, Delhi, wherein, it was stated that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon had neither sold the property to anyone nor has entered into any Agreement to Sell. Thereupon, the complaint was filed. 7. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out. During investigation, the police found that the applicant has fabricated various documents and accordingly, appropriate Section of Indian Penal Code was invoked. It, however, remains undisputed that the charge sheet was submitted way back in the year 2022 and till date, only one witness has been examined. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Anshul Gurah v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.1 has held as under: “The appellant, Anshul Gurha, has been in custody since 19.12.2024. We are informed that the trial has commenced and 4 out of the 13 listed witnesses have been examined. However, as there is no possibility of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, we are of the opinion that his continued incarceration is not justified at this stage. Given the aforestated facts, the appellant, Anshul Gurha, is directed to be released on bail in relation to the aforestated FIR on such appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the trial Court.” 9. It is manifest that while considering an application for regular bail, the Court is required to balance the gravity of the allegations with the fundamental rights under the Constitution. Where the investigation has been 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 22/07/2026 at 11:46:00 completed, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, continued incarceration of an undertrial cannot be justified solely on account of the allegations. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to inflict punishment before guilt is established. Prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly when the trial is progressing at a slow pace for reasons not attributable to the accused, militates against the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial and weighs significantly in favour of grant of bail. 10. In facts of the present case, the investigation already stands concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed. The prosecution has cited 20 witnesses; however, only one witness has been examined despite the applicant having remained in judicial custody for more than 4 years and 4 months. There is nothing on record to indicate that the delay in the progress of the trial is attributable to the applicant. The applicant is approximately 75 years of age, has no criminal antecedents, no further custodial interrogation is required, and one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on regular bail while two others were charge-sheeted without arrest. In such circumstances, continued incarceration of the applicant, with no immediate likelihood of the trial reaching its conclusion, would not serve the ends of justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid the present applicant be released on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 12. Nothing stated hereinabove shall however be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. 1 SLP (Crl) 15098/2025 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 22/07/2026 at 11:46:00 13. The application stands disposed of. 14. Copy of the order be forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 20, 2026 Nc/ss 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 22/07/2026 at 11:46:00