CRL.M.C. 6236/2026 Page 1 of 4 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010396542026 + CRL.M.C. 6236/2026 PARAM PREET SINGH AHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeev Sirohi and Mr. Puneet Narula, Advocates. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sohaib Haider, APP for State. SI Arun Kumar, P.S. DIU/South. Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Mr. Vipul Sharma, Ms. Deepika Sharma, Ms. Hardikaa Kalia and Mr. Pratham Bagga, Advocates for R-2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 28.09.2026 1. This petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] has been filed by the Complainant/Petitioner seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 4 vide order dated 29th May, 2025 in BAIL APPLN. 1532/2025, BAIL APPLN. 1539/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 1561/2025, arising out of FIR No. 141/2025 registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar, Delhi under Sections 127(2)/351(2)/ 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]. 2. The cancellation is sought essentially on account of the alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement dated 28th May, 2025 executed by the parties in mediation proceedings before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The Petitioner points out that two cheques, for INR 90 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 30/09/2026 at 11:21:38 CRL.M.C. 6236/2026 Page 2 of 4 lakhs and INR 95 lakhs respectively, issued towards the balance settlement amount, were dishonoured. It is urged that, since the settlement preceded and formed the basis of the order granting pre-arrest bail, its subsequent breach amounts to misuse of the liberty granted by this Court. 3. Mr. Sohaib Haider, APP for the State, on instructions from the IO, states that custodial interrogation of Respondents No. 2 to 4 is not required at this stage. 4. The Court has considered the matter. The settlement was certainly one of the circumstances in which the applications for pre-arrest bail came to be disposed of. The order dated 29th May, 2025, however, separately and expressly sets out the conditions subject to which such protection was granted. Those conditions require Respondents No. 2 to 4 to join and cooperate in the investigation as and when directed by the IO, not leave the country without informing the IO/SHO concerned, refrain from contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence, and give their mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and keep their mobile phones switched on at all times. Significantly, compliance with the monetary terms of the settlement was not stipulated as a condition for continuation of the pre-arrest protection. 5. In Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr.1, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in cancelling bail on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise. The Court observed that non-fulfilment of the terms of a compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling bail. More particularly, in Indralal Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Sitani & Anr.2, the Supreme Court, 1 (2004) 3 SCC 388. 2 Criminal Appeal No. 287/2020, decided on 14th February, 2020 (Supreme Court of India). 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 30/09/2026 at 11:21:38 CRL.M.C. 6236/2026 Page 3 of 4 while considering cancellation of pre-arrest bail on the ground that the parties had failed to arrive at a settlement, held that bail should not be granted or cancelled merely because the parties so desire. The Court further held that a settlement cannot be made a condition for grant of bail and that mere failure to arrive at a settlement is not a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail if the other conditions are satisfied. 6. The Settlement Agreement itself expressly contemplated the eventuality of dishonour of any of the cheques. It expressly provides that, in such an eventuality, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings as well as pursue any other remedy available in law. Those remedies remain available to the Petitioner in accordance with law. What cannot follow is that the remedy of cancellation of pre-arrest bail becomes a means of enforcing a monetary settlement. 7. The allegation that the mediation process was merely used as a device to obtain pre-arrest bail cannot, by itself, be inferred from the subsequent dishonour of the cheques. The Status Report itself records that Respondent No. 4/Rajni Goel produced a ledger account showing payments aggregating to INR 26,97,499/- to the Complainant towards interest during the period from June 2025 to June 2026, purportedly in terms of the mediation settlement. The FIR was registered in February 2025 and the Respondents have remained protected from arrest since 29th May, 2025. The investigation has continued in the meantime; notices have been issued, Rajni Goel and Respondent No. 3/Mini Mittal have joined the investigation and were interrogated, while Respondent No. 2/Raj Kumar Goel did not join on the occasion in question as he was reported to be unable to move without assistance. Mr. Sohaib Haider, APP for the State, on instructions from 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 30/09/2026 at 11:21:38 CRL.M.C. 6236/2026 Page 4 of 4 IO, now states that custodial interrogation of Respondents No. 2 to 4 is not required at this stage. For well over a year after grant of pre-arrest bail, no material has been shown of the Respondents having tampered with evidence, influenced witnesses, or otherwise acted in breach of the conditions imposed by this Court so as to warrant withdrawal of the protection already operating in their favour. 8. Thus, even if the settlement is put to one side and the requirement of custody is examined independently, no ground for cancellation of the pre- arrest bail is made out. The alleged default may have its own legal consequences, but cancellation of bail does not follow merely from such default, particularly when the State does not presently require custodial interrogation of Respondents No. 2 to 4. 9. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that this order shall not affect the Petitioner’s remedies arising from the alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement or dishonour of the cheques, which may be pursued in accordance with law. 10. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations in the FIR or on the inter se rights and liabilities of the parties under the Settlement Agreement. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/as 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 30/09/2026 at 11:21:38