Delhi High Court – Orders
Vandana Sharma Alias Teena vs State Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1658/2025
VANDANA SHARMA ALIAS TEENA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Aishwarya
Rao, Ms. Sanjana Nair, Ms. Janvi
Narang, Ms. Anurupita Kaur, Mr.
Sumit Jain and Ms. Venika Nim,
Advocates.
versus
STATE GOVERNMENT OF
NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the
State.
Mr. Harvinder Singh, Mr.
Deepak Kashyap and Mr. Viksit
Kumar, Advocates for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.05.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present application under Section 483 of the BNSS seeks
regular bail in case FIR No. 128/2022, under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B/174A of the IPC, registered at P.S. EOW.
3. As per the case of the prosecution the present FIR was registered
at the instance of complainant Rohitshave Kumar who stated that he is
the rightful owner of property measuring 459 sq. Mts., bearing No.
1/4417, Ram Nagar Extension, Main Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
The complainant alleged that officials of ICICI Bank had visited his
property and enquired about one person, namely, Amrit Mann, who had
taken loan on the said property and defaulted the loan instalments. It is
alleged that the complainant thereafter enquired and came to know that
Gyaneshwar Sharma (father of the present applicant) and others have
prepared a forged will and sold the said property to one Amrit Mann vide
registered sale deed dated 30.01.2019. It is alleged on the basis of this
sale deed the co-accused Amrit Mann had taken two home loans
amounting to Rs. 4.28 crores from ICICI Bank, Gurugram in 2019.
During the investigation it was revealed that the aforesaid accused Amrit
Mann who had mortgaged the said property on the basis of forged
documents had absconded. It is stated that he has been declared
absconder in the present case vide order dated 12.10.2023 passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation, it was
revealed that Gyaneshwar Sharma (who has since passed away) is the
father of the present applicant had executed gift deeds with regard to the
subject property in favour of Amrit Mann as well as the present applicant.
It is the case of the prosecution that in three of the sale deeds the applicant
had signed as a witness. It is further submitted that the present applicant
knew the said properties belonged to her father-in-law and still signed as
a witness to the aforesaid forged sale deeds. It is the case of the
prosecution that the money was then siphoned of to bank accounts of M/s
Spring Leaf Biotech and M/s Oxyflora.
5. It is submitted that M/s Spring Leaf Biotech is a partnership firm
of the present applicant with her sister and as far as M/s Oxyflora is
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
concerned the present applicant is the sole proprietor. It is further
submitted that an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores has been transferred to the
bank account of the aforesaid companies. It is also submitted that notices
have been issued against the husband and sister of the present applicant
for the purpose of investigation. The chargesheet was filed and the matter
is pending before the learned Trial Court at the stage of consideration on
the point of charge.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the applicant had witnessed the documents at the instance of
her father. It is further submitted that the investigation in the present FIR
is complete and the evidence are documentary in nature and no useful
purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in further judicial
incarceration. It is also submitted that in the present case the grounds of
arrest as well as the reasons of arrest have not been supplied to the
applicant. Reliance has been placed of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 934, and it is pointed out that arrest memo which has been
placed on record is similar to the memo which formed the subject matter
of the aforesaid decision and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
the same was not in compliance with the constitutional mandate.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph 22 of the Kshitij
Ghildiyal vs. Director General of GST Intelligence, Delhi, 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 8949 wherein it was observed as under:-
“22. While it is not disputed that an arrest memo was furnished to
the petitioner at the time of arrest, the issue is regarding furnishing
of grounds of arrest “in writing” to the petitioner. While the arrest
memo has an acknowledgement signed by petitioner stating thatThis 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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
the grounds of arrest had been explained to him, it is asserted that
no grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner in writing.
This forms the nub of the dispute and the basis for challenging the
legality of arrest.”
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the applicant would
also be entitled to the benefit of proviso of Section 437(1) of the CrPC.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2269. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
applicant is mother of two children who are currently pursuing their
studies and are dependent on her.
8. Per contra, learned APP for the State, assisted by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant, submits that the allegations in
the present FIR qua the present applicant are serious in nature. It is their
case that the applicant had not executed the document as a witness on just
asking of her father. A deep-rooted involvement is reflected from the
money which was credited in the account of the company of which she
is a sole proprietor and as well as in the partnership firm. It is further
submitted that the applicant is also involved in two other cases of similar
nature. One of the cases arises out of the complaint made by her father-
in-law. Learned APP for the State further submits notice under Section
41A CrPC was served on the present applicant and in pursuance of which
she had joined the investigation and thereafter during the course of the
interrogation on the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer she was
taken into judicial custody. The arrest memo has been placed on record.
It is further submitted that in view of the nature of the allegations as well
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
as involvement in the present case she does not deserve to be released on
bail. Further the applicant is also involved in the following cases:
1) FIR No. 349/2024 dated 03.08.2024 (investigation)
2) FIR No. (RC No. 25/2005) dated 28.01.2005 under Sections
420/468/471/120B IPC, registered by CBI (pleaded guilty)
3) FIR No. 204/2013 (convicted under Section 323 IPC)
4) FIR No. 205/2013 registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park
(pending trial)
9. With regard to the aforesaid involvements learned Senior counsel
for the applicant submitted that in the FIR mentioned at S.No .3 the
applicant had preferred an application for plea bargaining. In respect to
FIR mentioned at S. No. 1 it is submitted that the applicant has not
received any notice.
10. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
11. So far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant with regard to non-supply of reasons of arrest, it
is seen that the arrest memo which has been placed on record does not
mention any specific reason except that for proper investigation of
offences. The arrest memo relied upon by the prosecution is similar to
the subject matter of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Pranav Kuckreja (In Police Custody) vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
W.P.(Crl.) 3476/2024 dated 18.11.2024. Learned Single Judge of this
Court after analysing the judgments on the issue observed and held as
under:-
“24. It is no longer res integra that grounds of arrest must be
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
communicated in writing to the arrested individual expeditiously.
Providing the grounds of arrest to the person being arrested is of utmost
sanctity and significance. This information serves as the fundamental
basis for the arrested individual to seek legal advice, challenge the
remand, and apply for bail.
25. In the context of present case, it is pertinent to mention that Section
50 Cr. P.C. uses the word “forthwith”. The dictionary meaning of the
word “forthwith” as defined in the Shorter Oxford English dictionary
on historical principles, fifth edition, volume – 01 A-M is (1) Along
with, at the same time; and (2) Immediately, at one, without delay.
26. The term ‘forthwith’ in legal parlance also generally implies an
action that must be taken without unreasonable delay. It suggests
promptness and urgency. The expression „forthwith‟ has also been
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition as “forthwith, adv.
(14c) 1. Immediately; without delay. 2. Directly; promptly; within a
reasonable time under the circumstances; with all convenient dispatch”.
This implies that the “grounds for such arrest” have to be communicated
at the earliest. Reading this otherwise may not justify the requirement
of Section 50 Cr. PC.
27. The Courts, while examining the implementation of procedural
safeguards emanating out of the constitutional rights, have to give strict
interpretation. Thus, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the
“grounds of arrest” in compliance of Section 50 Cr. P.C. has to be
supplied “forthwith” as discussed above.”
12. It is also noted that the present applicant prior to joining
investigation on 20.11.2024 had joined investigation in pursuance of
notices issued under Section 41A of the CrPC. The husband and sister of
the present applicant not joining the investigation cannot be a ground to
deny bail to the present applicant. The evidence is primarily documentary
in nature. The applicant has been in custody since 21.11.2024 and the
chargesheet is still at the stage of consideration of point of charge.
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 held as under:-
“21. In bail application generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accusedThis 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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
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 is required to ensure that an accused
person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than
verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction,
and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly
found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some
unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is
the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the
concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any
person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which,
he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should
be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content
and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been
convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person
for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson”
14. Even as per the case of the prosecution there are other co-accused
persons against whom investigation is continuing. In these
circumstances, the trial is not likely to conclude any time soon.
15. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present
application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail,
on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like
amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further
subject to following conditions:
i. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05
the learned Trial Court.
ii. The applicant shall intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an
affidavit and to the Investigating Officer regarding any change in
residential address.
iii. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and
when the matter is taken up for hearing.
iv. The applicant is directed to give her mobile number to the
Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times.
v. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with
evidence or try to influence the witness in any manner.
16. The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
18. Needless to state, nothing mentioned hereinabove is an opinion on
the merits of the case and any observations made are only for the purpose
of the present bail application.
19. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for
necessary information and compliance.
20. Order be uploaded on the website of this court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
MAY 20, 2025/sn/pr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
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 23/06/2025 at 16:27:05