BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 $~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010324162026 + BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 DEEPU KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manish Gupta, Mr. Yash Tewari, Ms. Riya, Mr. Shivanshu Gusain, Mr. Vivek Chandersekar, Mr. Satyam Sharma, Mr. Ramchandurni B. Siddhartha, Ms. Shivangi Mishra, Ms. Shivani Singh, Ms. Devegana Misra, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP SI Deshpal, PS – EOW. Mr. Bakul Jain, Mr. Manit Walia, Advs. for R2 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 26/2024 dated 02.04.2024, registered at Police Station EOW, Central District, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18 BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 3. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of IDFC First Bank Limited alleging that the applicant, along with his wife and other co-accused, had obtained a housing loan on the basis of forged property documents. The applicant and his wife approached the complainant bank for a loan to purchase property bearing Plot No.127, Block-A, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram, from Sanjiv Jain. A loan of Rs. 4.45 crores was sanctioned, out of which an amount of Rs. 3,93,95,413/- was disbursed into the account of the purported seller. Following defaults in repayment, enquiries allegedly revealed that the title documents were forged. The prosecution alleges that the chain of title included a transfer deed dated 04.09.2019 purportedly executed by Madan Lal Jain, who had expired in 2014, and that the transaction was carried out through impersonation. 4. The applicant was arrested on 09.01.2026 and the charge-sheet dated 06.04.2026 has since been filed. He was granted bail by the learned ACJM vide order dated 30.05.2026. However, on an application filed by the complainant bank, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge cancelled his bail vide order dated 11.07.2026. Hence, the present application. 5. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the bail granted by the learned ACJM was on merits and was subsequently cancelled only on account of the alleged non-disclosure of FIR No. 38/2024. He submits that FIR No. 26/2024 was inadvertently mentioned in its place, whereas the correct particulars were already disclosed in the States’ reply and were before the learned ACJM at the time bail was granted. It is further submitted that four criminal cases had been disclosed and the applicant had never projected himself as having clean antecedents. The decision in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188 is, therefore, stated to have been wrongly 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18 BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 applied. 6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the applicant was unaware of the additional FIR relied upon by the complainant bank, having received neither notice nor summons therein. He also disputes the allegation that the applicant was untraceable, submitting that he was already in custody and was produced in the present case pursuant to production warrants. 7. It is further submitted that, after cancellation of bail, the applicant is entitled to approach this Court and cannot be compelled to seek fresh bail before the learned Magistrate. According to him, the findings on merits recorded while granting bail remain undisturbed. He further submits that the charge-sheet already stands filed and continued incarceration is not warranted merely on account of the seriousness of the allegations. 8. On merits, learned senior counsel submits that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser who obtained the concerned loan on the basis of registered title documents. That he received no part of the loan proceeds and did not impersonate any person. Referring to the charge-sheet, he further submits that the alleged impersonator has not been identified, no CCTV footage could be collected and the bank officials concerned with sanction of the loan have been given a clean chit in the investigation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant bank submits that six FIRs are registered against the applicant, whereas only four were disclosed, that too with incorrect or incomplete particulars. He points out that FIR No. 517/2022 was shown as disposed of despite the applicant being in custody therein and that his custody in FIR No. 245/2022 was also not disclosed. According to him, these omissions constitute material concealment and cannot be treated as mere typographical errors. He further 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18 BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 relies upon FIR Nos. 191/2021 and 245/2022 to contend that the applicant is involved in similar property/loan transactions displaying a similar modus operandi and further, relying upon the charge-sheet, disputes the contention that the applicant derived no financial benefit. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 further submits that, after withdrawing the challenge to the cancellation order, the applicant ought ordinarily to have approached the Court below for fresh bail. Relying upon Amit Kumar Singal (Dr.) v. CBI, he submits that exceptional circumstances must be shown for approaching the High Court directly despite concurrent jurisdiction. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned and has perused the material placed on record. 12. It is well settled that, while considering an application for bail, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed assessment of the evidence involved. What the Court is required to consider is whether the material placed on record discloses a prima facie case or not. 13. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon a transfer deed dated 04.09.2019 purportedly executed by Madan Lal Jain, who had expired on 07.07.2014, the concerned deeds’ use in the subsequent sale transaction and the procurement of a sanctioned loan of approximately Rs. 4.45 crore. The Status Report filed also refers to the routing and immediate diversion of the loan proceeds and the FSL opinion concerning the questioned documents. Therefore, contentions that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser, did not impersonate anyone and received no part of the loan proceeds are matters to be examined during trial and do not, at this stage, negate the prima facie case that is being formed on the basis of the material that is available. 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18 BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 14. It is also relevant to note that the affidavit filed by the applicant discloses five antecedent FIRs, apart from the present FIR. Section 420 IPC is common to all the said cases. FIR Nos. 191/2021, 245/2022, 38/2024 and 517/2022 also involve offences relating to forgery and conspiracy, whereas FIR No. 24/2023 has been disclosed as being registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC. The material on record nevertheless reflects the applicant’s involvement in other cases involving allegations of property- related cheating and fraudulent transactions, indicating, prima facie, a similar modus operandi. Though the mere pendency of other cases cannot, by itself, be determinative, the nature and similarity of such antecedents are relevant considerations while examining the for bail 15. As far as the disclosure of antecedents is concerned, in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised the obligation of a person seeking bail to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents. In the present case, although FIR No. 38/2024 and the applicant’s custody therein were reflected in the reply filed by the State before the learned ACJM, the learned Sessions Court, while cancelling bail, found that the applicant himself had not correctly disclosed the said FIR and his custody therein in the bail proceedings. Even assuming that the incorrect mention of the FIR number was inadvertent, the effect of the applicant’s own disclosure is required to be considered in the light of the record. 16. Further, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42, the Supreme Court held that, while considering a successive bail application, the Court must have regard to the reasons underlying the earlier order and the fresh grounds, if any, warranting a different view. The cancellation order dated 11.07.2026 continues to operate and no material 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18 BAIL APPLN. 2876/2026 change in circumstances has been shown. The charge-sheet had already been filed before both the grant and cancellation of bail and, therefore, does not constitute a fresh circumstance. 17. In view of the prima facie material, the nature and similarity of the antecedents, the material non-disclosure and the absence of any subsequent change in circumstances, no ground for release of applicant on bail is made out. 18. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 19. Nothing herein above shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 21. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/b/PG 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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:18