BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 $~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 & CRL.M.A. 19446/2026 RESHAM SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Shiksha, PS Dwarka South Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant with complainant-in-person. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 112/2026 dated 17.05.2026, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, Delhi, under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. I have heard Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant is also present in person. 3. The petitioner had earlier sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2026. The State had filed a reply before the Sessions Court, which is on record. 4. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the material on record, is 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 16:55:14 BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 as follows: a. The petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2020 with the complainant – Satish Kumar, in respect of an immovable property being Flat No. 359, Category MIG, Ground Floor, Vijayee Veer Yojna, Kargil Apartment, Sector 18-A, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi. b. The agreement was entered into on the assurance that the petitioner was the exclusive owner in possession of the said property, and that the property was free of encumbrances. c. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 90,00,000/-. The agreement records that Rs. 25,00,000/- had been received by the petitioner, and the remaining amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- was to be paid before 18.11.2020. d. According to the complainant, a sum of Rs. 66,00,000/- was thereafter paid by 31.10.2020. e. It later came to the knowledge of the complainant that the petitioner had mortgaged the property with State Bank of India [“SBI”]. f. The petitioner thereafter provided a purported ‘No Dues Certificate’ [“NDC”] dated 11.01.2021, issued by SBI, to the complainant. g. The aforesaid NDC was verified by the concerned branch of SBI, which reported that the NDC had not been issued by them, and that it did not match the records of the branch, the authorised signatories, or the official issuance system of the bank. h. SBI, in fact, auctioned the property, and handed over its possession 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 16:55:14 BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 to a third party in the year 2022, as the loan remained unpaid. i. The subject FIR was registered on 17.05.2026, pursuant to an order dated 15.05.2026, passed by the Magistrate’s Court in an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS filed by the complainant. 5. Mr. Thakur submits that there are several ongoing civil and criminal disputes between the petitioner and the complainant. Even in respect of the very same immovable property, two alleged agreements to sell dated 19.08.2020 and 18.01.2021, were entered into between the parties, in which different consideration amounts have been mentioned. He further submits that the petitioner had no role in the forgery of the purported NDC dated 11.01.2021, issued by SBI, and that he had, in fact, paid a substantial sum of over Rs. 1 crore to the complainant, and a substantial amount to one Mr. Nand Kishor, who was a witness to both the aforesaid agreements. 6. Mr. Thakur does not, however, dispute that the two agreements to sell were, in fact, signed by the petitioner, but submits that the documents were executed only by way of security, and no transaction in respect of the property was intended by the parties. 7. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious. Neither of the agreements to sell, which are admittedly executed, mention the existence of a mortgage over the property, and the documents contemplate transfer of the property and possession thereof, which would not be permitted in terms of the mortgage. The alleged NDC has been verified and SBI has also denied execution thereof. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the case 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 16:55:14 BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 involves serious allegations against the petitioner, both of cheating and of forgery of bank documents, in the form of the NDC. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is not appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to grant the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court has noted, time and again, that anticipatory bail remains an extraordinary remedy. Such an adjudication requires balancing the public interest in a free and fair investigation, with the petitioner’s liberty. Reference in this connection is made to a judgement of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar1, wherein the Court held as follows: “30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled to such grant.”2 9. Further, the requirement of custodial interrogation is not by itself 1 (2024) 12 SCC 382. 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 16:55:14 BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 conclusive, even in an application for anticipatory bail. The Court has emphasized that, other considerations, such as the seriousness of the offence, and prima facie material available, have to be examined. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K.3, wherein it was observed as under: “12. We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like Pocso and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”4 10. Applying these factors to the present case, it is evident that the admitted documents dated 19.08.2020 and 18.01.2021, both contemplate sale of the property to the complainant. Neither document discloses the 2 Emphasis supplied. 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1529. 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 16:55:14 BAIL APPLN. 2525/2026 existence of a mortgage. Even more significantly, the second serious allegation is of forgery of the NDC dated 11.01.2021 issued by SBI, signifying that the loan had been, repaid, and that there were no dues in the loan account. Shortly after the date of the said document, the petitioner admittedly entered into the second agreement to sell. The allegedly forged document was purportedly a banker’s certificate, and the allegation is that it was forged by the petitioner, who, in any event, was prima facie the beneficiary of the document. 11. While a mini trial at the stage of grant of bail is unwarranted, the nature of the allegations in this case and the prima facie material available on record, do not persuade me to grant the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. 12. The fact that the petitioner and the complainant are involved in other litigations is also not in my view determinative. None of the other litigations between the parties concerns this property. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition, alongwith pending application, is dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 8, 2026 Tg/mk/KA/ 4 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 16:55:14