[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Chhote Lal vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 14 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 31.07.2025
Date of Decision: 14.08.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024
CHHOTE LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP
for State and Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh,
Adv. along with SI Ravi Poonia, PS
Dayalpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT
%
1. The present bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19731), has been moved by the petitioner, Chhote
Lal, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 391/2023, registered
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, at Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi.
2. The FIR was registered on 27.05.2023 pursuant to a written
complaint lodged by one Mohd. Hamid, who alleged that he had been
induced into purchasing a property bearing no. D-7/63, Dayalpur,
Delhi, admeasuring 200 square yards2, on the basis of forged and
1
hereinafter “CrPC”
2
hereinafter “subject property”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 1 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
fabricated documents. It was stated that the sale consideration agreed
upon was Rs. 72 Lakhs , of which various instalments were paid in
cash and otherwise, including Rs. 2 Lakhs as token money on
27.10.2022 and further payments on 28.10.2022, 15.11.2022,
27.04.2023, 28.04.2023, 30.04.2023, and 05.05.2023, totalling the
alleged consideration amount.
3. As per the FIR, the complainant claimed that the sale was
facilitated by co-accused Pravesh Kumar (son of the present
petitioner), who represented himself as the owner of the subject
property. Several individuals, including the present petitioner Chhote
Lal, were stated to have been present during the transaction and
allegedly participated in the preparation and execution of forged
documents, including registered agreements and relinquishment deeds.
The complainant claimed that the documents relied upon by the co-
accused, including alleged relinquishment deeds dated 16.02.2021 and
12.09.2022, were fraudulent and had been executed in collusion with
the present petitioner and other named individuals.
4. During the investigation, it emerged that one Ratan Lal, the
brother of the present petitioner, had made a PCR call on 09.05.2023
alleging unauthorised entry into the subject property by some
unknown individuals. Ratan Lal, who was examined by the
Investigating Officer3, stated that he and the petitioner had jointly
purchased the property in 1981 and that he had subsequently acquired
the petitioner’s share of 25 square yards in 2021. He further stated that
he had vacated and locked the premises in 2006 upon shifting to
3
hereinafter “IO”
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 2 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, and was unaware of the alleged transactions
undertaken by Pravesh Kumar and others.
5. The investigation further revealed that various accused persons,
including the petitioner, were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to
create forged documents with respect to the subject property and to
induce the complainant into parting with substantial sums of money.
The IO recorded in his reply that the petitioner was seen in a video
footage counting money, had allegedly executed two distinct
relinquishment deeds pertaining to different area of the same property,
and had also taken a loan from IIFL, Moti Nagar Branch on the said
property even after its purported sale.
6. Furthermore, the investigation uncovered that Pravesh Kumar
had secured a loan of Rs. 3.6 lakhs from one Sunita Rai in 2021 by
mortgaging documents pertaining to the 75 square yard portion of the
property. A written agreement was executed between Sunita Rai and
the petitioner, signed by the Pravesh Kumar as a witness. Despite
several payments made over time, Sunita Rai confirmed that
approximately Rs. 3 lakhs remained outstanding. She produced the
original agreement and title documents in support of her claim.
7. Based on these findings, the investigating agency has asserted
that the petitioner is not only complicit in the creation of forged
documents but also a co-conspirator in the broader scheme of cheating
the complainant out of a sum of Rs. 72 Lakhs, by falsely representing
the ownership and title of the subject property.
8. It is also on record that the co-accused Pravesh Kumar was
arrested on 20.06.2023 and has remained in judicial custody. The
chargesheet in the case was filed on 18.09.2023. Proclamation
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 3 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated against the present
petitioner, alleging that he had absconded despite being aware of the
registration of the FIR.
9. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was earlier
rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide order dated 13.09.2024. The said
order records that the petitioner had been evading arrest despite being
aware of the FIR since 2023, and that the allegations against him
involved execution of forged documents and active participation in the
alleged conspiracy.
10. The present application was filed on 14.09.2024, subsequent to
the rejection of bail by the Sessions Court, and is now being
considered by this Court.
11. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2024, had granted interim
protection to the petitioner, subject to him joining investigation as and
when called by the IO. This protection granted to the petitioner has
continued to remain in force since the said order.
Submissions made by the petitioner
12. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the petitioner is a 75-year-old man suffering from
multiple health ailments, including severe piles and deteriorating
eyesight. Owing to his frail condition and apprehension of arrest, he
was unable to appear before the IO or join proceedings at earlier
stages. It is submitted that the petitioner is now willing to participate
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 4 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
in the investigation and abide by all directions issued by the IO or
Court.
13. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner undertakes to
appear on every date of hearing and investigation whenever required
by the IO/SHO/Court. He further assures that he shall not misuse the
liberty granted to him, and is prepared to furnish sound surety to the
satisfaction of the Court, if released on anticipatory bail.
14. It is further argued that the petitioner is neither a flight risk nor
in a position to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Emphasis is laid on the petitioner’s advanced age and his deep roots in
society, to demonstrate that there is no likelihood of him absconding
or fleeing from justice.
15. Learned Counsel draws attention to the fact that out of eleven
accused named in the FIR, eight have already been granted regular or
anticipatory bail. Specifically, co-accused Deepak Aggarwal and
Nishant Verma are on regular bail. Deepak Aggarwal was released on
bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while accused Nishant
Verma was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Shivani Verma and Pooja
Aggarwal have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Anticipatory Bail has also been
extended to similarly placed co-accused Anita, Himansi, Kalpana, and
Suman Lata by this Court.
16. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are
identical to those levelled against the abovenamed co-accused,
particularly with respect to the execution of two relinquishment deeds
dated 16.02.2021 and 12.09.2022. It is urged that the petitioner, like
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 5 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
the other accused, merely signed as an executant of the documents and
had no direct involvement in the alleged sale transaction or any
element of deception.
17. The petitioner also undertakes to cooperate fully with the
investigation and to comply with all terms and conditions that may be
imposed by the Court. It is argued that custodial interrogation is not
warranted, especially in view of the nature of the alleged role and the
consistent interim protection in place since 19.09.2024.
Submissions made by the respondent
18. On the other hand, Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, learned APP for
the State, opposes the application for anticipatory bail and contends
that the petitioner, along with his associates, hatched a criminal
conspiracy and fraudulently induced the complainant to part with a
sum of Rs. 72 Lakhs. It is submitted that the offence is grave and
serious in nature, punishable with imprisonment for life, and thus not
fit for grant of discretionary relief at the pre-arrest stage.
19. Learned APP further submits that the accused was residing on
rent at H. No. KA-362, Vijay Nagar, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh, which address he has now vacated. Owing to his lack of a
permanent address, there exists a significant risk that the accused may
abscond or remain unavailable for investigation and trial if granted
anticipatory bail. It is further contended that the cheated amount is yet
to be recovered, and the accused is in a position to tamper with
material evidence and influence key witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 6 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
20. It is further submitted that the accused is the petitioner of the
IIFL loan in question and has actively participated in the creation and
use of forged property documents measuring 75 square yards for the
purposes of availing a loan amounting to Rs. 8.48 lakhs. The
documents used to secure the loan are stated to be forged, and the
chain of ownership presented by the accused is falsified, giving rise to
serious questions regarding his intent and conduct. Additionally, two
separate relinquishment deeds of the same property, executed before
the Sub-Registrar, Seelampur, stand in stark contradiction with each
other, pointing towards deliberate fabrication.
21. The learned APP also argues that the petitioner is likely to
repeat similar offences if enlarged on bail, given the clear pattern of
dishonesty emerging from the record.
Analysis
22. Having heard the parties and perusing the case record, it clearly
emerges that the petitioner was fully aware that he held only an
undivided share of 75 square yards in the property in question, out of
the total 200 square yards. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner is
alleged to have actively executed documents that ultimately enabled
his son, Pravesh Kumar, to purport to sell to the complainant a portion
of land exceeding their lawful share. The documents forming part of
the transaction, particularly the relinquishment deed and related
ownership papers, appear to have originated from the petitioner
himself. Thus, this is not a case where the petitioner can claim
ignorance or allege that he was kept in the dark by his son. On the
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 7 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
contrary, the material on record suggests that the petitioner played a
pivotal role in enabling the fraudulent transaction.
23. It is also relevant to note that although this Court had granted
interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 19.09.2024, the
same was expressly made subject to his joining investigation as and
when required. The petitioner, while appearing in response to notices,
has, as per the IO, failed to cooperate meaningfully with the
investigation. The mere act of physical presence, absent actual
cooperation, does not amount to compliance with investigative
obligations.
24. The record further discloses that the present incident is not an
isolated act. The role of the petitioner and other family members also
surfaces in transactions involving one Sunita Rai and a separate loan
transaction with IIFL Finance, in which forged documents were again
allegedly employed. This consistent pattern of conduct indicates a
modus operandi and adds credibility to the allegations that the
petitioner is part of a larger conspiracy involving repeated fraudulent
transactions.
25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that other
accused persons named in the FIR have already been granted regular
or anticipatory bail, and that the petitioner is therefore similarly
entitled to relief on the ground of parity, does not merit acceptance.
While it is indubitable that certain allegations are common to all
family members and others, the role ascribed to the present petitioner
is distinct and materially different from them. The FIR and
accompanying documents point to the petitioner having played a more
central and active role in the preparation and execution of documents
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 8 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
that facilitated the alleged fraudulent transaction. The principle of
parity cannot be applied in a mechanical manner, and in the present
case, the petitioner’s role prima facie appears to be more prominent
than that of the other accused who have been granted relief. This puts
the petitioner on a starkly different pedestal than the co-accused with
whom he seeks parity.
26. Moreover, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Karkardooma, the petitioner has previously evaded arrest. This
past conduct heightens the apprehension that if the present application
is allowed, the petitioner may again avoid joining the investigation or
abscond altogether, thereby frustrating the course of justice.
27. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present
application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
28. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
29. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J
AUGUST 14, 2025/gs/yr
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 3386/2024 Page 9 of 9
Signed By:SHILPI
Signing Date:14.08.2025
18:45:33
[ad_2]
Source link