$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010200872026 + BAIL APPLN. 1775/2026 MAHESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Sharma and Ms. Khushboo, Advocates. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, with SI Naman Mudgal, PS Farsh Bazar. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘BNSS’] (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 796/2021, registered at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [‘IPC’]. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant has already undergone incarceration of more than one year, and that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The submissions are opposed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the 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 21/09/2026 at 10:59:57 State. On instructions from the Investigating Officer, it is submitted that, although the complainant was duly intimated, no one has appeared on his behalf. It is further stated that the dispute has arisen out of a landlord-tenant relationship, which has resulted in the lodging of the present FIR. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The allegations against the applicant, in substance, are that, being a tenant, he forged certain documents and set up a false claim regarding the payment of consideration and the ownership of the complainant’s property. The dispute has its origin in the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, which later developed into a dispute concerning an alleged agreement to sell the tenanted premises. 6. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the charges are yet to be framed, so that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. The custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be required any longer. Further, the documents alleged to be forged have already been recovered, and the applicant is no longer in possession of any property papers which could possibly be destroyed or tampered with. 7. The object underlying the grant of bail was explained by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation,1 in the following terms: “In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.” 8. The Supreme Court has also consistently reiterated that bail is the rule 1 (2012) 1 SCC 40. 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 21/09/2026 at 10:59:57 and jail the exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,2 it was observed that the grant of bail must be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner, having regard to the presumption of innocence that attaches to every accused until his guilt is established in accordance with law. 9. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He has already undergone incarceration of more than one year, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the judicial precedents relied upon, the applicant is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to such further terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court. 11. The bail application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 P/sa 2 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 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 21/09/2026 at 10:59:57