Naveen Kumar Singhal vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 August, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Naveen Kumar Singhal vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 August, 2025

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).         OF 2025
                            (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(S)(CRL.) NO(S).9232/2025)

     MR.NAVEEN KUMAR SINGHAL                                                              APPELLANT(S)


                                                            VERSUS

     THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                                           RESPONDENT(S)

                                                      O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the order dated 25.03.2025

passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail

Appln 1162 of 2025 in CRL.M.A.8903 of 2025.

Apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.473/2015 registered at Police Station – Najafgarh,

District – South West for the offence punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

the appellant preferred an application before the High

Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short).

Said application for anticipatory bail has been

rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order dated

25.03.2025. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred.

By order dated 26-06-2025, this Court passed the
Signature Not Verified
following order:

Digitally signed by

BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.08.21
16:57:51 IST

Reason: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the first time when he came to know about the

1
related police case was when he was served with a
notice under Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure
Code [in short, “Cr.P.C.”] on 17.03.2023, to which
he had submitted reply on 21.03.2023. That apart,
he submits that it was a financial transaction
with the Punjab National Bank, which
unfortunately, for various circumstances, resulted
in declaration of the loan account as a‘non-
performing asset’.

Finally, upon settlement with the Bank,
liability has been settled under a ‘one-time
settlement scheme’ and the entire amount
thereafter has been paid by the petitioner.

Issue notice, returnable on 21.08.2025.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve
notice on the standing counsel for the State.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be
arrested in connection with FIR No. 473 of 2015
dated 09.06.2015 registered at Police Station
Najafgarh, Delhi, subject to the petitioner
cooperating with the investigation.”

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of

the appeal and learned counsel for the respondent-State and

perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant being the borrower from the Punjab National Bank

has ultimately settled the claim by way of one time

settlement with the Bank; the Bank has no further claim or

grievance as against the appellant herein; however, he is

being hounded by the respondent-State, which is inclined to

conduct an investigation into the matter, whereas the

2
appellant has already settled his account with the Bank by

payment of Rs.70,00,000/-. He further submitted that

pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, he has

joined the investigation and he would continue to do so

subject to the interim order being made absolute and on

certain terms and conditions that may be imposed on the

appellant. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside

and relief of anticipatory bail may be granted to the

appellant.

Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the

first respondent-State submitted that irrespective of the

settlement made by the appellant with the Bank, the fact

remains that the appellant had forged and fabricated

documents with regard to property which belongs to third

parties in respect of collateral securities; that the

investigation is still on; that in the circumstances, any

relief of anticipatory bail would only jeoparadise the

investigation; hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

Considering the circumstances, in our view, the

appellant is entitled to the relief of bail.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set-aside the

order passed by the High Court.

We direct that in the event of arrest of the

appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the

appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security of

the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only)

with two like sureties.

3
It is directed that the appellant shall extend

complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The

appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any

way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on

record.

Any infraction of the conditions shall entail

cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed.

……………………….., J
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]

……………………….., J
[R. MAHADEVAN]

NEW DELHI
AUGUST 21, 2025.

4

ITEM NO.6                    COURT NO.3             SECTION II-D

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 9232/2025
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25-03-2025
IN BA NO. 1162/2025 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI]

NAVEEN KUMAR SINGHAL PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI RESPONDENT(S)

IA No. 147889/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT

Date : 21-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Piyush Goel, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Vats, Adv.

Ms. Shubhangi Nasa, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare Ld, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv.

Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.

Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv.

Ms. Ira Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.

Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which

is placed on file.

Pending application(s0, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

5