$~30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010257022026 + BAIL APPLN. 2156/2026 SH. JITENDER PAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELH AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Suraj, PS South Campus. Ms. Ishita Jain and Mr. Ayush Jain, Advocates for R-2. 31 # CNR No. DLHC010257032026 + BAIL APPLN. 2157/2026 SH. ADARSH PAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State. SI Suraj, PS South Campus. Ms. Ishita Jain and Mr. Ayush Jain, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV 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 17/08/2026 at 11:00:12 O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. The applicants by way of instant applications seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’) in connection with FIR no. 64/2026 registered at PS South Campus, South West (Delhi) under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (‘BNS’). 2. As per the FIR, the complainant engaged the accused/applicants as contractors for reconstruction of his residential property and paid them Rs. 30,00,000/- on 11.06.2025, and subsequently handed over vacant possession of the property to them. The applicants thereafter allegedly carried out unauthorized demolition and sold building materials from the property to third parties. Further, it is alleged that the applicants misappropriated around Rs. 5,75,000/- meant for demolition and debris removal, which was adjusted by the third-party purchaser, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the applicants. Despite repeated follow- ups, the complainant alleges that the applicants are wrongfully withholding Rs. 27,75,000/-, having returned only Rs. 8,00,000/-. 3. The applicants were earlier protected from arrest and were subjected to interrogation. 4. The Investigating Agency has interrogated the applicants and has submitted the report. It has come on record that the applicant Adarsh Pal Singh, has obtained money to the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs from the complainant for undertaking construction work from the complainant. He allegedly introduced another co-accused Jitender Pal Singh pretending the said accused to be a civil engineer. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:00:12 5. Learned APP for the State, however, submits that so far as accused Jitender Pal Singh is concerned, no custodial interrogation is necessary, however, with respect to accused Adarsh Pal Singh, the investigation is being carried out and the charge-sheet will be submitted. 6. It has been pointed out in the supplementary status report that accused Adarsh Pal Singh has joined the investigation on 10.08.2026. During the investigation, he did not clarify the expenditures and payments from his bank account. The accused has provided bills of Rs. 3,93,056/- and apart from the said, he did not provide any other bill. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, opposes the application and she submits that there is a similar compliant received against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is a habitual offender. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. 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 1 (1980) 2 SCC 565. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:00:12 inflexible restrictions or conditions, not envisaged by the statute, can be imposed while considering an application under Section 438 CrPC. 10. 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. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the dispute essentially is of civil in nature. The complainant seems to have offered some money to one of the accused persons, namely, Adarsh Pal Singh for carrying out construction activities and in performance of the said work, the dispute has arisen. Since the applicants have appeared before the Investigating Agency and furnished whatever information they had, there is no reason to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 12. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released by the Investigating Officer on anticipatory bail, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Investigating Officer. 13. The applications stand disposed of. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:00:12 PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 13, 2026 aks 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 17/08/2026 at 11:00:12