$~2 to 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010740542025 + BAIL APPLN. 3741/2025 DINESH .....Applicant Through: Mr. Praveen Goswami and Mr. Rohit, Advs. versus STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Singh, APP SI Rahul Ranjan, PS Harsh Vihar Mohd. Shamikh, Adv. for Complainant with complainant in person M: 9999727247 Email: mohdshamikhadvocate@gmail.com # CNR No. DLHC010741492025 + BAIL APPLN. 3761/2025 SANNU .....Applicant Through: Mr. Praveen Goswami and Mr. Rohit, Advs. versus THE STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Singh, APP SI Rahul Ranjan, PS Harsh Vihar Mohd. Shamikh, Adv. for Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified Complainant with complainant in person M: 9999727247 Email: mohdshamikhadvocate@gmail.com # CNR No. DLHC010827282025 + BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025 & CRL.M.A. 31747/2025 YOGESH KUMAR ALIAS BALLI .....Applicant Through: Mr. Praveen Goswami and Mr. Rohit, Advs. versus STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Singh, APP SI Rahul Ranjan, PS Harsh Vihar Mohd. Shamikh, Adv. for Complainant with complainant in person M: 9999727247 Email: mohdshamikhadvocate@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. The present applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”) being FIR 0401/2025 dated 25th July, 2025, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), at Police Station (“PS”) Harsh Vihar, North East District, Delhi. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3761/2025 is an 83 years old man, and that applicants in BAIL APPLN. 3741/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025 are his sons. 3. It is submitted that the applicants by way of a registered General Power of Attorney (“GPA”), Will, Agreement to Sell and other documents, had purchased the property bearing no. H. No. 251, measuring area 125 sq. yards, out of Khasra No. 25/11, in the abadi of Ganga Sahai Colony, Village Mandoli, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi, on 17th January, 2000, from Sh. Ashok Kumar, son of Sh. Tej Pal, which was executed in favour of Sh. Yogesh Kumar, son of Sh. Sannu Ram, who are the applicants in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2026 and BAIL APPLN. 3761/2025, respectively. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has informed this Court that the applicants have been in possession of the property in question since the year 2000, after having purchased it from one Ashok Kumar. 5. Thus, it is submitted that the said GPA was executed in the year 2000, and the present FIR has been lodged only belatedly in the year 2025. 6. It is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that the present matter is only a civil dispute, on the basis of which an FIR has been lodged. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has informed this Court that pursuant to directions issued in the present proceedings, the applicants have already joined the investigation and there is no need for securing custody of the applicants. 8. He submits that all the relevant documents qua the purchase of the property in question, have already been given to respondent no. 2, i.e., the Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified complainant. 9. It is submitted that the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025 had earlier instituted a suit for permanent injunction, being CS 79/2003, against respondent no. 2, in respect of the property in question. The said suit was dismissed. The appeal against the dismissal of the suit, being RCA 37/2011, was also dismissed. It is only thereafter that the present FIR was lodged. 10. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has not initiated any civil litigation against the applicants. Thus, it is submitted that when respondent no. 2 was already in the possession of all the property documents since the year 2003, i.e., when the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025, there is no occasion for respondent no. 2 to now register an FIR in the year 2025. Accordingly, it is submitted that anticipatory bail be granted to the applicants, since the applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation. 11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State submits that the documents as submitted by the applicants have been verified and it has come to the attention that the same are forged documents. It is on the basis of these forged documents that the applicants have been seeking ownership to the property in question. 12. It is submitted that the applicants have taken water and electricity connections and that the Police requires the documents on the basis of which the said connections were obtained. 13. It is further submitted that upon verification by the Police, it has come to the fore that the registered GPA as executed by Shri. Ashok Kumar in favour of Yogesh Kumar, i.e., the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025, pertains to Khasra No. 25/11, however, in the Sub-Registrar Office Records, Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified Khasra No. 26/11/2 has been mentioned. 14. It is also submitted that Sh. Ashok Kumar, from whom the property was allegedly purchased is also not traceable. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant is also present before this Court, and submits that on the basis of the complaints made by the complainant, the electricity and water connections which had been taken by the applicants, have been disconnected. 16. He further submits that the applicants have wrongly contended that the electricity connection was taken in the year 2003, since the same was taken only in the year 2025. 17. He also submits that the property in question, i.e., Plot No. 25/11 has been grabbed by the applicants only after the dismissal of the civil suit and the appeal thereto, i.e., CS 79/2003 and RCA 37/2011, respectively. 18. He thus submits that it is only now that the cause of action has arisen against the applicants, on account of which FIR 0401/2025 has been lodged. 19. Rebutting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that since the document was executed by Sh. Ashok Kumar way back in the year 2000, the applicants are not in touch with him after a passage of 25 years. He submits that the applicants have already supplied the last known address of Sh. Ashok Kumar, which they were aware of. 20. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the suit for permanent injunction filed by Sh. Yogesh Kumar, i.e., the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025, was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (North East District), Karkardooma Courts Delhi, vide judgment dated 09th March, 2011. Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified 21. In the said judgment, it is clearly noted as follows: “xxx xxx xxx Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 22. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly shows that a defence was categorically raised on behalf of respondent no. 2 herein that the applicants herein are not in possession of the property in question. 23. It has also been categorically recorded that the stand taken by respondent no. 2 herein was to the effect that the applicants herein are neither the owner nor in the possession of the property in question. Furthermore, the Court, as aforenoted, categorically recorded that there was no documentary or oral evidence produced by the applicants herein to show that they were in possession of the property in question. 24. This Court notes that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality, as the appeal preferred thereagainst by the applicants, has also been dismissed. 25. Upon a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the applicants confirms the fact that there is no other appeal which is pending against the judgment dated 09th March, 2011, passed in CS 79/2003 and the Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified judgment on appeal dated 01st May, 2014, passed in RCA 37/2011. 26. This Court notes the submission made by learned APP for the State that the documents as provided by the applicants are forged documents. A Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Police as signed by the Station House Officer (“SHO”), PS Harsh Vihar, wherein, it is stated as follows: “xxx xxx xxx Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified xxx xxx xxx” 27. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed by the Police clearly brings to the fore that that the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025 was also previously involved in other FIRs. Thus, it is clear that the said applicant does not have clear antecedents. 28. It also has come to the fore that the applicant on the basis of the forged No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from one Kusum had obtained an electricity connection. Furthermore, it is noted that she has submitted a complaint stating that Dinesh, i.e., applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3741/2025, had taken documents of her property on the pretext of arranging an electricity connection for the same. It is further her case that her signatures were forged and misused. 29. This Court also takes note of the categorical submission made on behalf of the Police that during the investigation, it has come to attention that the documents dated 17th January, 2001, as pertaining to the registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will Deed, affidavit and receipt in respect of the Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified property in question measuring 125 sq. yds out of Khasra No. 25/11, Village Mandoli, is actually registered in the Sub-Registrar Office pertaining to Khasra No. 26/11/2 and not Khasra No. 25/11, as stated by the applicants. 30. This Court also takes note of the submission that Sh. Ashok Kumar, from whom the property in question was allegedly purchased by the applicants is also not traceable. 31. Therefore, it is clear that the case is still at the stage of investigation and the Police would need the custody of the applicants for interrogation. 32. Considering the submissions made before this Court, no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants in BAIL APPLN. 3741/2025 and BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025. 33. As regards the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3761/2025, i.e., Mr. Sannu Ram, this Court takes note of the fact that he is more than 80 years of age. 34. For the reason aforesaid, it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3761/2026, in connection with FIR 0401/2025, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/448 of the IPC, at PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi, the said applicant shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer (“IO”)/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall report to the IO, as and when required, and will cooperate in the investigation. b. The applicant shall furnish his residential address to the concerned IO/SHO, and shall not change the address without informing the IO/SHO. c. The applicant will not leave the National Capital Territory of Delhi Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50 Signature Not Verified (“NCTD”) without prior intimation to the IO. The applicant shall furnish his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO, and shall ensure that the said mobile number remains operational and switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not be changed, nor shall the phone be switched off, without prior intimation to the IO/SHO. d. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, attempt to contact the complainant, or tamper with the evidence, or otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is prejudicial to the proceedings, nor shall he offer any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. e. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the pendency of these proceedings. 35. Accordingly, the applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3761/2025, i.e., Sh. Sannu Ram, is granted anticipatory bail. However, the anticipatory bail of the applicants in BAIL APPLN. 3741/2025, i.e., Sh. Dinesh, and BAIL APPLN. 4082/2025, i.e., Sh. Yogesh Kumar, is hereby denied. 36. It is clarified that the observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications, and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. 37. Accordingly, the present petitions, along with the pending application, stand dismissed. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/KR By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:30.09.2026 12:33:50