BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010289772026 + BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 SH. RAJ KUMAR MAHESWARI @ RAJU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate. versus STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastav, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present application under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 49/2020 dated 7th April, 2020, registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Vide order dated 17th July, 2026, this Court afforded interim protection to the Applicant with a direction to join the investigation in the following terms: “1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 49/2020, dated 07.04.2020, at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, Delhi, registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 1 “BNSS” 2 “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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48 BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 2 of 6 2. I have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2026, Mr. Srivastava has handed over a status report, which is taken on record. 4. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the said status report, is as follows: a. The FIR was registered on 07.04.2020, pursuant to a complaint dated 07.08.2018 at the instance of one Mr. Naveen Kumar, who was then the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India [“the Bank”], Chandni Chowk Branch. b. The allegation in the FIR was that one Sangeeta Maheshwari, who is the wife of the present applicant, and proprietor of M/s Electronic Plaza, had induced the Bank to sanction a cash credit facility of Rs. 2 crores to the said concern, against a sufficient mortgage of immovable properties bearing No. 1/7216-A and 1/7224, East Rohtas Nagar, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi, by depositing title documents. c. It was alleged that the said documents were, in fact, discrepant and had been fraudulently placed with the Bank by way of equitable mortgage. d. During the course of investigation, documentary evidence was collected and examined. The records relating to the mortgaged property were obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar and compared with the title documents deposited by the applicant’s wife. e. It is stated that investigation has progressed substantially and the material collected corroborates the allegations made in the FIR. f. The very same properties were also used as collateral security for a cash credit facility obtained in the name of the proprietorship concern of co-accused Kiran Sharma, namely M/s Kanan Electronics & Mobile Point, from Oriental Bank of Commerce. Against this, a case has been registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation [“CBI”], being RC No. RC0032020A0031 on 17.09.2020, under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Officers of Oriental Bank of Commerce are also accused in the said CBI Case. g. As far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he was not only a guarantor, but also actively 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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48 BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 3 of 6 associated with the affairs of his wife’s proprietorship concern. h. The husband of co-accused Kiran Sharma, namely Ajay Sharma, is also accused of active involvement in the conspiracy. i. Both Kiran Sharma and Sangeeta Maheshwari were declared proclaimed offenders in connection with the present FIR, were thereafter arrested, and have subsequently been enlarged on bail. j. It is contended that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in order to confront him with the documents obtained in the course of investigation. 5. The applicant had earlier applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and was granted interim protection by order dated 02.06.2026, but his application was ultimately dismissed by order dated 05.06.2026. During the period he was protected by the Sessions Court, he joined investigation, but it was ultimately held that his custodial interrogation was necessary for the purpose of the case. 6. Mr. Sharma submits that the applicant was first interrogated in connection with the present FIR in the year 2021, when he was in custody in connection with a different FIR, for unrelated offences. He was ultimately acquitted of those offences and released on 31.01.2026. He submits that, since the year 2021, when he was first interrogated in connection with the present FIR, he remained in custody for period of more than four years, but no attempt was made to interrogate him in connection with the present FIR during this entire period. Mr. Sharma further submits that the evidence in the present case is largely documentary, and already available with the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. 7. Mr. Srivastava, on the other hand, submits that the offence is serious in nature, and concerns a fraudulent transaction in which a cash credit facility of Rs. 2 crores was obtained on the basis of forged title documents. He submits that, although the applicant was not interrogated during the period he was in custody, his custodial interrogation is now required to confront him with documents, which have been subsequently made available by the Bank. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of interim protection to the applicant. 9. The FIR was admittedly registered in the year 2020 on the basis of a complaint of the year 2018. The applicant was also interrogated in connection with FIR in the year 2021, and remained in custody [in an unrelated case] until 31.01.2026. The status report does not clarify as to the nature of the documents which have now come to light, which requires his custodial interrogation at this stage. Mr. Srivastava, instructed by the IO, who is present in Court, accepts that most of the documents in question were available with the IO even earlier, although it is contended that one tranche of documents has come forth only in June 2026. 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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48 BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 4 of 6 10. Although the requirement of custodial interrogation is not the sole parameter, upon which an application for anticipatory bail is to be adjudicated, I am of the view that the present case does not disclose such material, as to subject the applicant to potential deprivation of his liberty at this stage. The proprietor of the concern in question, which had taken the cash credit facility was the applicant’s wife, who has already been granted regular bail. Even according to the prosecution case, he was the guarantor of the loan and alleged to be an active participant in the proprietorship concern. The evidence in this case is also largely documentary, and the documents are already in possession of the IO. 11. The Supreme Court in Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Anr., [2025 SCC OnLine SC 457], has held that when the evidence is primarily documentary in nature, and the custodial interrogation is not essential, grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “18. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has stayed or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre-arrest detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody subject to the conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process.” [Emphasis supplied.] 12. For the present, subject to the applicant joining investigation on 21.07.2026 at 04:00 PM, and thereafter as required by the IO, the applicant will not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 49/2020, dated 07.04.2020, at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, Delhi, until the next date of hearing. 13. List on 28.07.2026. 14. The IO is also directed to inform the complainant of the next date of hearing, and furnish an updated status report to the Court.” 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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48 BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 5 of 6 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, counsel for the Applicant, submits that pursuant to the aforenoted order, the Applicant has already joined the investigation and has been interrogated. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State, confirms the same. Mr. Sharma further undertakes that the Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The undertaking is taken on record. 4. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the provision of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC is rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees personal liberty. Section 438 aims at protecting the personal liberty of an individual, who, at the time of seeking pre-arrest bail, has not been convicted of the alleged offence and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.3 5. Considering the above reasons stated in order dated 17th July, 2026, the undertaking given by the Applicant’s counsel, the present application is allowed. In the event of arrest, Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of INR 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, subject to the following conditions: a. The Applicant shall join and cooperate with the investigation as and when directed by the IO; b. The Applicant shall not leave the country without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO; 3 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48 BAIL APPLN. 2606/2026 Page 6 of 6 c. The Applicant shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. d. The Applicant shall give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times. 6. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by filing an application seeking cancellation of bail. 7. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. The application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/hc 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 05/10/2026 at 10:08:48