$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010967552025 + BAIL APPLN. 4676/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36737/2025 SURAJ .....Petitioner Through: None. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP with SI Dilsuky, PS Begumpur. Mr. Dinesh Malik & Mr. Harit Chauhan, Advocates along with Complainant in person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. Present application has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 B.N.S.S. seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.0215/2025 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC, registered at PS Begum Pur, Delhi. 2. None appears for the applicant. 3. None had appeared on behalf of the applicant on 29.07.2026. 4. The narration of facts as stated in the FIR appear to be that the complainant, Hari Om Gupta, approached a property broker one Bansidhar Upadhyay regarding the purchase of a 125 sq. yards plot bearing No. 1619A, Tirthkar Nagar, Jain Colony, Delhi purportedly owned by the applicant, Suraj. On 22.12.2020, the transaction was finalized for a total sale 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:17 consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-, out of which the complainant allegedly paid Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash and for the remaining sale consideration, Rs. 30,00,000/, a 100 sq. yard plot which was registered in the complainant’s wife’s name bearing No. 198, Khasra No. 62-66, Prem Nagar-3, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, Delhi was transferred. 5. It is also alleged that after concluding the transaction, the complainant discovered that the subject plot was not in the name of the applicant Suraj, contrary to the representations made by the broker, who assured him that the relevant documents would be provided shortly. Subsequently, on 18.06.2023, when the complainant started construction on the subject plot, one Mahesh telephonically claimed title over the property, instructed him to halt construction, and repeatedly made life threats while using rude and abusive language. 6. It is contended that the applicant is evading arrest. The proceedings for issuance of non-bailable warrants have been initiated against him. The co-accused has already been arrested and he is in judicial custody. The applicant seems to be the main accused person. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Mr. Hari Om Gupta wherein he alleged that the property was sold to the complainant on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The applicant during investigation has admitted that fabrication of the documents of property in question. 7. The Supreme Court in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 observed as under: “57. It is thus a trite position that an absconder is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail as a general rule, however, in certain exceptional cases, where 1 1 (2026) 6 SCC 216, para 57 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:17 on a perusal of the FIR, case diary and other relevant materials on record, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the absconding accused, then the power of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised in favour of the absconding accused. However, no such exceptional case is made out in favour of the accused as per the documents on record.” 8. The principle laid down in Balmukund Singh Gautam (supra) is in alignment with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar2. The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused who avoids arrest, faces proceedings for non-bailable warrants, and whose custodial interrogation is deemed vital to the investigation cannot claim the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. Granting pre-arrest bail to an accused evading the process of law not only prejudices the investigation but sets a bad precedent. 9. Bearing in mind the necessity of the applicant to be custodial interrogated, the Court is not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 ab 2 (2022) 14 SCC 516 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 05/09/2026 at 09:46:17