BAIL APPLN. 1158/2026 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1158/2026 JYOTI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Ms. Pooja Sharma & Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with Mr. Abhay Sahni, Advocate. SI Sumit, PS Bawana. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for Complainant. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 29.07.2026 1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 541/2025, dated 17.09.2025, registered at Police Station Bawana, District Outer North, Delhi, under Sections 420/448/467/468/471/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. I have heard Mr. Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Manjeet Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 3. By an order dated 23.03.2026, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, and recorded as follows: “4.The prosecution had filed a status report before the Sessions Court, 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 31/07/2026 at 13:32:01 BAIL APPLN. 1158/2026 a copy of which has been annexed to the present application. It is stated therein that: a. The FIR was registered at the instance of a constituted attorney of Mr. Vikesh Uppal, who claims to be the owner and allottee of industrial plot bearing No. 124, Pocket K, Sector 3, Bawana, DSIDC City, Delhi. b. The principal allegation is against the mother of the present applicant, namely Ms. Ramshree, alleging that she trespassed into the plot along with her family members, including the applicant, and obtained an electricity connection in her name, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. c. Ms. Ramshree did not provide any documents regarding ownership of the property. From the documents provided by Mr. Uppal, the prosecution has found in his favour that he is the owner of the plot. d. Although civil proceedings [CS SCJ 354/2025] are also pending at the instance of Ms. Ramshree and the present applicant, the FIR was registered, and Ms. Ramshree was arrested on 01.10.2025. e. As far as the present applicant is concerned, it is contended that a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was issued to her. However, she has not joined the investigation. It is categorically stated that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required, but she is required to join the investigation as and when called upon by the IO. xxx xxx xxx 7. Having regard to the fact that the allegations in the FIR appear principally to be against the applicant’s mother, the material on record, and to the fact that the IO does not seek custodial interrogation of the applicant, it is directed that the applicant shall not be arrested in connection with the subject FIR till the next date of hearing, subject to her joining the investigation today at 05:00 PM and thereafter, as and when required by the IO.” [Emphasis supplied.] 4. I am informed that a chargesheet, as well as a supplementary chargesheet, in the aforesaid proceedings have since been filed. 5. The IO has also filed a status report dated 06.04.2026, in which it is stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation in compliance with the aforesaid order, and has been interrogated. It is further stated that 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 31/07/2026 at 13:32:01 BAIL APPLN. 1158/2026 she resides at the property in question, alongwith her family members, and that she does not have any knowledge of the alleged forged General Power of Attorney. As far as the role of the present petitioner is concerned, the status report reads as follows: “That the present applicant is a family member of the main accused and she is co-accused in the-case as she is illegal occupant of the property in question. She is aware about forged documents used in the commission of offence.” In the status report, it is also stated as follows: “That custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage, however, her continued participation in investigation is necessary for fair and complete investigation.” 6. It appears from the above that the prima facie material against the petitioner does not pertain to her direct participation in the alleged act of forgery, and the IO also does not require her custody. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed, and it is directed that, in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 541/2025, dated 17.09.2025, registered at Police Station Bawana, District Outer North, Delhi, under Sections 420/448/467/468/471/506/34, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/-, and one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the IO/Station House Officer/Duty Magistrate, and subject to the following further conditions: a. The petitioner will appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing. b. The petitioner will furnish her mobile number to the IO, and shall keep the said mobile phone running and always switched on. 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 31/07/2026 at 13:32:01 BAIL APPLN. 1158/2026 The mobile number shall not be changed or switched off without prior intimation to the IO. c. The petitioner will give her residential address to the IO, and will not change his residential address without prior intimation to the IO. d. The petitioner shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence. e. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during pendency of these proceedings. 8. The petition stands disposed of in these terms. 9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 29, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/ 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 31/07/2026 at 13:32:01