$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010031452026 + BAIL APPLN. 440/2026 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 220/2026 HITANSHU VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Nagpal with Mr. Ankur and Ms. Vasudha Gupta, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 05.08.2026 1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR 197/2020 for offence under Section 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) registered at PS Begum Pur, Rohini. 2. It is to be noted that on the first date of hearing i.e. on 02.02.2026, the applicant was protected from arrest and has cooperated with the investigation. The Investigating Agency has also not insisted for arrest of the applicant. 3. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner approached the complainant for financial assistance and in return offered to sell the Upper Ground Floor of the Plot Number 206-207, Pocket A-3, Sector 16, Rohini. After receiving the considerations, the petitioner is alleged to have fraudulently sold the property to a third person. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:49 4. The principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been succinctly and authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab,1. It was held that the power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary discretionary remedy intended to protect personal liberty and is to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench further held that while exercising such discretion, the Court must strike a balance between the individual's right to personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. It was also observed that anticipatory bail cannot be granted on vague or general apprehensions and that no inflexible restrictions or conditions, not envisaged by the statute, can be imposed while considering an application under Section 438 CrPC. 5. The aforesaid principles were further elucidated in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 438 CrPC is intrinsically connected with the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and must be exercised bearing in mind the presumption of innocence. The Court observed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” and held that denial of anticipatory bail would be justified only where the facts disclose a genuine necessity, such as the requirement of custodial interrogation or the likelihood of the applicant absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, and considering that, in the interregnum, the parties have been referred to 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565 2 (2011) 1 SCC 694 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:49 mediation and are in the process of arriving at a settlement, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions as may be imposed by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the application, along with other pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 5, 2026 aks 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 07/08/2026 at 11:22:49