[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Ajay Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025, CRL.M.A. 18077/2025, CRL.M.A.
18078/2025, CRL.M.A. 18079/2025 & CRL.M.A. 18083/2025
AJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Nain, Ms. Charu Sharma,
Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with Insp. Manjeet Singh, PS
NFC
Mr. I.M Khan, Mr. Md. Qamar,
Advocates for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 07.07.2025
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 402/2023 registered under
Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code 18603, at P.S. New Friends
Colony. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 467,
468, 471 and 120B of IPC were also added against the Petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is summarised as follows:
2.1 The subject FIR was registered against the Applicant and his
associates in relation to an alleged fraudulent transaction involving the sale1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 1 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
of 48 bighas of land in Harchandpur, Baghpat, U.P.4 The Complainant, Dr.
Nizam Khan alleges that the Applicant and the co-accused falsely
represented that the property in question was free from all encumbrances
and defects in title. Believing these representations to be genuine, the
Complainant, entered into an agreement to purchase the land in December
2023 for a total sale consideration of ₹11.52 crores. Pursuant to this
agreement, Dr. Khan paid an amount of ₹1 crore to the accused persons as
earnest money, partly in cash and partly via RTGS transfers. However, upon
subsequent verification of the title and possession of the land through
records maintained by the office of the concerned Tehsildar, the
Complainant discovered that the property was allegedly acquired by the
accused persons on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Further
inquiry revealed that prior to 2005, the rightful title holder of the said land
was one Mrs. D’Souza. Alarmed by these findings, Dr. Khan lodged a
complaint, leading to the registration of the FIR and the initiation of
investigation against the Applicant and his co-accused.
2.2 During investigation, it was revealed that the accused persons
(including the Applicant) were involved in a large-scale land fraud, centred
around a will dated 28th March, 1984, purportedly executed by Mrs. D’souza
in favour of one Abdul Mazid (father-in-law of co-accused Iqbal Khan). The
said will was approved vide order bearing No. 70 dated 5th October 2005
issued by Chakbandi Adhikari Baghpat, U.P. Relying on this order, the land
was transferred to the Applicant and his co-accused brothers. However,
further investigation uncovered that an internal inquiry conducted by the
office of the Collector, Baghpat, revealed that Order No. 70 issued by the
4
“subject land”
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 2 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
Chakbandi Adhikari was not based on actual facts and was liable to be
cancelled. Consequently, a revision petition was filed by the public
prosecutor before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Baghpat,
challenging the legality of Order No. 70. It was asserted that Mrs. D’Souza
had died intestate and without legal heirs, and thus, the property had
devolved to the government. The said revision petition is currently pending
adjudication before the ADM, Baghpat.
2.3 Investigation further revealed that the purported transfer of the subject
property to the Applicant and other co-accused in 2005 by Abdul Mazid, on
the basis of the will of Mrs. D’Souza, was done even before the disposal of
the case by the Presiding officer, Collector’s office Baghput dated 21st May,
2007.
2.4 The investigating officer has reported that a total of twelve criminal
cases have been registered against the accused persons by various
complainants, all involving a similar modus operandi. In these cases, the
accused allegedly used fabricated documents to falsely represent title and
possession of the same subject land, thereby inducing unsuspecting buyers
to enter into fraudulent agreements to sell. Out of these twelve cases, seven
cases have been specifically registered against the present Applicant,
indicating a consistent and organized pattern of criminal activity.
2.5 In light of these revelations, the offences under Sections 467, 468,
471, and 120B of the IPC were added to the subject FIR, and further
investigation into the matter is currently ongoing.
3. Counsel for the Applicant urges the following grounds for seeking
pre-arrest bail:
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 3 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
3.1 The entire case of the investigating authority against the Applicant
rests merely on unsubstantiated allegations, without any tangible evidence
establishing that the Applicant was not the true title holder of the property or
that he misrepresented his ownership status. No material has been placed on
record justifying the invocation of Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC, as the
Applicant and his brothers purportedly possess clear title to the subject land.
3.2 The essential ingredients constituting the offence of cheating under
Section 420 of IPC is not made out as there is no material to show that the
Applicant dishonestly or with fraudulent intent entered into the transaction
with the Complainant. As held in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar5, to constitute an offence of cheating under Section
420 of IPC, dishonest intention must be shown to have existed at the
inception of the transaction. However, the Applicant was not involved in the
transaction, in fact, he did not even meet the Complainant in person other
than the time of execution of the agreement to sell. Moreover, the Applicant
also obtained valid No Objection Certificates from relevant financial
institutions before prior to the transaction, and thus, there was no
suppression or misrepresentation regarding any dues on the land.
3.3 The FIR discloses no specific role attributable to the Applicant, as all
negotiations and execution of the agreement were carried out by his co-
accused brother.
3.4 Mere breach of contract does not ipso facto give rise to criminal
liability. The Complainant is aggrieved by the non-execution of the
agreement to sell, whereunder he was first contractually obligated to remit
the balance sale consideration by 12th December, 2022, failing which the
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 4 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) would be forfeited. Instead of fulfilling this
obligation or initiating civil proceedings against the forfeiture of the EMD,
the Complainant has initiated criminal action against the Applicant in an
attempt pressurize them to settle their civil claims. Thus, the impugned FIR
is an abuse of the process of the law and ought to be quashed.
3.5 Bail should not be denied to the Applicant merely on the basis of
allegations, since the essential ingredients of the offence are not prima facie
satisfied. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI6.
3.6 The Applicant is not a flight risk as he has not absconded in any other
pending cases.
3.7 The Applicant suffers from multiple medical conditions and any
incarceration would adversely affect his health.
3.8 Custodial interrogation of the Applicant is unwarranted as all the
relevant material – i.e., the land revenue records are already in the
possession of the investigating officer.
3.9 Other co-accused persons. against whom there are identical
allegations, have already been granted bail by the Trial Court and therefore,
the Applicant should be granted anticipatory bail on grounds of parity.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, strongly
opposes the bail application on the following grounds:
4.1 The Applicant has played an active and integral role in the execution
of fraudulent agreement to sell which forms the subject matter of the present
case. This is substantiated by the receipt of the EMD amount of ₹1 Crore by5
(2000) 4 SCC 168.
6
(2012) 1 SCC 40
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 5 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
the Applicant and the other co-accused, from the Complainant.
4.2 Investigation into the money trail with respect to the EMD amount is
ongoing. In this context, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
necessary for effectively tracing the movement of funds and unearthing the
full scope of the alleged conspiracy. Granting anticipatory bail at this
juncture, would severely hamper and prejudice the ongoing investigation.
4.3 The Applicant is involved in seven similar cases of fraud involving
around 25-30 victims who have been identified so far. If he is enlarged on
bail, he may not only repeat such offences but may also abscond from the
process of the law or otherwise attempt to influence witnesses.
5. The Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. At
the outset, it is noted that while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 482 of BNSS, the Court is only
required to take a prima facie view as to whether there is material which
indicates to the potential culpability of the Applicant. The Supreme Court in
Balchand Jain v. State of M.P.7, observed that the power of granting
anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly, and ought to be given in cases
where false implication of a person is suspected, the accusation appears
frivolous, or the applicant is demonstrably unlikely to abscond or abuse the
liberty if so granted. The relevant portion of the judgement is as follows:
“Now, this power of granting “anticipatory bail” is somewhat
extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases
where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a
frivolous case might be launched against him, or “there are
reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an
offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty
while on bail” that such power is to be exercised. And this
power being rather of an unusual nature, it is entrusted only to7
(1976) 4 SCC 572BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 6 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
the higher echelons of judicial service, namely, a Court of
Session and the High Court. It is a power exercisable in case of
an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence and there is
no limitation as to the category of non-bailable offence in
respect of which the power can be exercised by the appropriate
court.”
[Emphasis added]
6. In the present case, the investigation is ongoing. The material
unearthed so far prima facie suggests that the Applicant and his co-accused
may have deliberately misrepresented the title and possession status of the
subject property, portraying it as unencumbered and lawfully theirs. This
misrepresentation formed the foundation of the agreement to sell, leading to
the receipt of substantial earnest money from the Complainant.
7. The material on record reveals that the Applicant, along with his co-
accused, has been consistently engaging in a pattern of fraudulent
transactions, involving repeated execution of agreements to sell the same
parcel of land to multiple unsuspecting purchasers. Pertinently, investigation
has disclosed that as many as seven other similar cases have been registered
against the Applicant, all involving the same modus operandi of fabricating
title documents and inducing innocent buyers into parting with substantial
sums of money. These antecedents demonstrate not merely isolated lapses,
but rather a continuing and systematic course of conduct suggesting a deep-
rooted, organized criminal design.
8. The Applicant’s claim that he was not directly involved in the
execution of the transaction stands belied by the investigation thus far,
which indicates that he was a direct beneficiary of the EMD of ₹1 crore paid
by the Complainant. At this preliminary stage, there is sufficient material to
prima facie suggest that the Applicant actively participated in the alleged
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 7 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
fraudulent scheme and derived financial benefit therefrom. Consequently,
his contention that the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420
IPC are not met in the present case, cannot be accepted at this juncture.
9. It is well settled that custodial interrogation serves a crucial function
in cases of economic offences. It facilitates the effective tracing of
misappropriated funds, helps ascertain the full scope of the conspiracy, and
enables recovery of crucial documentary evidence of the money trails. In the
present case, given the involvement of multiple bank accounts, forged
documents, and the existence of a network of accomplices, custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is imperative to secure a fair and
comprehensive investigation.
10. Furthermore, the Applicant’s history of involvement in similar
offences significantly raises the risk of him absconding, tampering with
evidence, or influencing witnesses if granted anticipatory bail. The Supreme
Court has consistently held that while considering bail, the larger societal
interest and the need for a fair and unimpeded investigation must prevail
over individual liberty in serious economic offences.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
case against the Applicant discloses a prima facie involvement in a
cognizable and serious offence, supported by material indicating repeated
fraudulent conduct. The interests of justice demand that he be subjected to
custodial interrogation to fully unravel the conspiracy and prevent any
further misuse of the legal process.
12. Needless to state, the Court has not commented on the merits of the
case. All observations made herein are solely for the purpose of deciding the
present applicant and shall not be construed as an opinion expressed on the
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 8 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
13. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 7, 2025/d. negi
BAIL APPLN. 2254/2025 Page 9 of 9
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 09/07/2025 at 21:38:31
[ad_2]
Source link