$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 57/2026 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akash Mehta, Ms. Pooja, Mr. Keshvam Punj and Mr. Jai Khapran, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State. SI Vishnu, PS Badarpur Ms. Sheepali Patial, Mr. Vineet Mudgal and Mr. Pulkit Aneja, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 24.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner is presently in custody in another case, he is legally entitled to maintain and press the present application seeking anticipatory bail in a different FIR. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon SLP (Crl.) No. 6942/2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged transaction, as, according to the complainant herself, the property in question belongs to the petitioner’s brother. It is therefore contended that the transactions pertain to the petitioner’s mother and brother, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 3. Learned APP for the State opposes the application and submits that, as 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 30/07/2026 at 14:22:02 per the investigation, approximately 32 to 33 flats have been sold by the petitioner and his family members through about 77 sale deeds. It is further submitted that certain flats have been sold more than once and in some instances, the same flat has been sold two or three times by the petitioner and his family members. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are two adjoining buildings, namely 6A-1/3, Village Molarband, Badarpur and A-1/3, Village Molarband, Badarpur, and the petitioner is attempting to create confusion regarding the identity of the properties. She further submits that the petitioner and his family members have failed to furnish the statement of accounts sought by the Investigating Officer to ascertain the monetary transactions inter se amongst the family members. It is contended that the petitioner and his family members have duped a senior citizen and his family and considering their conduct during the investigation, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 6. The present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 24, 2026/b/P 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 30/07/2026 at 14:22:02