Delhi High Court – Orders
Hemant Tulsiani vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 June, 2025
$~SB-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2208/2025 & CRL. M.A. 17927/2025
HEMANT TULSIANI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. A. Mishra, Mr. Nidish Gupta,
Mr. Ankur Raghav, Mr. Amit
Peswani, Advs.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Y. S. Chauhan, APP for State.
Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for
Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 11.06.2025
CRL. M.A. 17928/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of
BAIL APPLN. 2208/2025 & CRL. M.A. 17927/2025
3. This is the second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory
bail in FIR No. 718/2024 under Section 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
4. It is submitted that the Applicant is an authorized signatory of M/s
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 24/06/2025 at 12:27:21
Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘TCDPL’) situated in
Lucknow. It is alleged that the Complainant invested ₹1,99,51,840/- in the
project of TCDPL, wherein the Buyer Agreements for four units, Agreement
of Assurance and Buy Back Agreements dated 03.06.2013 were executed in
favour of Complainant. As per the Agreement of Assurance dated
03.07.2023, the amount in question was given as loan by Complainant for a
period of one year and in case TCDPL fails to repay the same then M/s
Invest Care Pvt. Ltd. was to repay the same.
5. TCDPL had issued post-dated cheques for an amount of
₹1,99,51,840/- in favour of Complainant by buying back the units in
question. The Complainant presented the cheques given by the TCDPL,
however, the same were dishonoured and seven separate complaints under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act‘), have been
filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
which are pending.
6. During the pendency of the said proceedings under Section 138 of NI
Act, a mediated settlement agreement was entered into on 06.02.2019,
whereby the parties had settled the dispute amongst them for ₹2,80,57,647/-.
The said mediation settlement agreement also provided that, if the money
was not paid by TCDPL, then the Complainant shall be at liberty to claim
recovery of the same with interest.
7. As the Complainant was pursuing his remedy under Section 138 of
the NI Act against the accused persons, one of the units in question was
allegedly sold by TCDPL and, therefore, the Complainant filed a complaint
before the SHO, P.S. Rajouri Garden and the DCP, West Delhi District,
Rajouri Garden on 04.03.2023. The Complainant also filed a complaint
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 24/06/2025 at 12:27:21
under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class-02, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 15.05.2023 and vide order dated
13.11.2024 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-02, West, Tis Hazari
Court, Delhi directed the Respondent to register an FIR against TCDPL and
its Directors, who were actively engaged in the offence as alleged by the
Complainant. Pursuant to the said order, the FIR was registered on
16.11.2024, wherein the name of the Petitioner was also mentioned as an
Accused.
8. After the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (‘IO’)
issued notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the Petitioner to join the
investigation on 15.01.2025. The Petitioner had joined the investigation on
the same day. As per the Petitioner, no notice was received by the Petitioner
thereafter.
9. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the earlier notices were
served by the IO on whatsapp. The Petitioner preferred the first anticipatory
bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Tis Hazari Court,
Delhi being application No. 1720/2025.
10. In the status report filed before the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, it is
submitted that after notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS served upon the
Petitioner on 15.01.2025, wherein the Petitioner was asked to provide the
relevant documents that were required for the purpose of investigation, the
Petitioner did not join the investigation despite serving several notices under
Section 35(3) of BNSS that were pasted on the gate of the house of the
Petitioner to join investigation and also served through speed post, but the
same have been returned undelivered. It is also mentioned in the status
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 24/06/2025 at 12:27:21
report that the Petitioner was not joining the investigation despite the
service/pasting of the notices on the house of the Petitioner and, therefore,
Non-Bailable Warrants (‘NBWs’) were issued on 17.05.2025 and the same
were returnable on 03.06.2025. The status report also states that after
obtaining NBWs against the Petitioner, a raid was conducted at the address
of the Petitioner, but the Petitioner was not found at the said address and,
therefore, the copy of NBWs was pasted on the gate of the Petitioner’s
house. It is also stated that the Petitioner has been evading the arrest and
NBWs are yet to be executed.
11. The learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, vide order dated 30.05.2025
dismissed the first anticipatory bail after taking into consideration the status
report filed by the Respondent/State and observing that the Petitioner had
signed the mediation settlement agreement on behalf of TCDPL being the
authorised signatory and issued cheques in that capacity, which got
dishonoured. It was also observed that despite the mediation settlement
agreement agreeing to not create third party rights in the said properties in
question, one of the units was sold to third party. It was also observed that
the Petitioner failed to rejoin further investigation and NBWs have been
issued against the Petitioner.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that offences
are punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years and,
therefore, the ratio in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014)
8 SCC 273 would be applicable to the facts of this case, which held that:
“7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident
that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend
to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the policeThis 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 24/06/2025 at 12:27:21
officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the
offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in
such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to
prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for
proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with
such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from
making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police
officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in
the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the
conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.”
13. It was submitted that there were whatsapp messages exchanged
between the Petitioner and IO showing willingness to provide the documents
and also images of the courier receipts were sent to the IO by way of
whatsapp message. It was also submitted that the Petitioner is not a director
of TCDPL, but was only an authorized representative. He is willing to fully
cooperate and provide all the information to the IO.
14. Issue notice returnable on 21.07.2025.
15. Let the reply be filed within a period of 4 (four) weeks.
16. In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the
Petitioner provided the Petitioner fully cooperates with the IO and appears
as and when called by the IO and also provides all the documents including
any agreements, bank statements, bank account details and any further
information that is required by the IO for the investigation.
17. List the matter before the Roster Bench on 21.07.2025.
TEJAS KARIA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 11, 2025
ssc 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 24/06/2025 at 12:27:21
[ad_1]
Source link