Delhi High Court – Orders
Rajan Batra vs The State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi) on 18 August, 2025
$~3 and 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 653/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4714/2025 STAY
RAJAN BATRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Sharma, Ms. Nishtha
Singh, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sajal Dhamija, Mr. Gaurav
Sehgal and Mr. Prince Assal,
Advocates.
+ BAIL APPLN. 656/2025 & CRL.M.A. 4725/2025 STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
NEERAJ BATRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Sharma, Ms. Nishtha
Singh, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sajal Dhamija, Mr. Gaurav
Sehgal and Mr. Prince Assal,
Advocates.
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
ORDER
% 18.08.2025
1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 BNSS read
with Section 528 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR
No. 129/2023 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police Station Greater
Kailash-I, New Delhi.
2. The complainant, Rajender Sharda, Director of Sheesh Mahal
Properties Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the petitioners alongwith co-accused,
namely the directors and officials of Bee K Bee Prints Pvt. Ltd., induced
him into an agreement to sell a property in Faridabad for a total
consideration of ₹1.05 crore. He paid ₹95 lakhs through RTGS after being
shown documents such as the title deed, board resolution, and other
company records, and was also given symbolic possession of the land. The
accused sought time for execution of the sale deed citing financial
difficulties, but later began avoiding the complainant despite repeated
follow-ups.
3. Subsequently, it came to light that the accused had dishonestly sold
the same property to third parties on 30.01.2023, despite the subsistence of
the complainant’s agreement. When confronted, the accused abused and
threatened him, claiming police influence. The complainant alleged that the
accused persons had breached trust, misappropriated his money, and
conspired to cheat him, causing wrongful loss to him and wrongful gain to
themselves. On this basis, the FIR was lodged under Sections 420/34 IPC.
4. Mr. Manu Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits
that both petitionersRajan Batra and Neeraj Batra are directors of Bee K Bee
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
Prints Pvt. Ltd., and on 15.03.2022 they entered into a financial arrangement
with Sheesh Mahal Properties Pvt. Ltd. He contends that although ₹95 lakhs
were received from the complainant, the transaction was in reality a loan and
not an agreement to sell, as alleged. This is supported by the fact that the
petitioners continued to pay interest on the said amount till October 2023,
which is wholly inconsistent with the nature of a property sale. It is further
urged that the prosecution has failed to produce any material substantiating
the existence of a genuine agreement to sell, and the true character of the
document is under serious doubt. According to learned senior counsel, the
complainant insisted on executing the document in the garb of an agreement
to sell merely to secure its loan.
5. It is further submitted that Form 16A (Annexure-C), shows that Bee K
Bee Prints Pvt. Ltd. paid ₹1 lakh to the complainant company on 30.07.2021
towards interest obligations. The petitioners have also pointed out that
Sheesh Mahal itself made an advance investment by booking a plot with
Amritsar Global City to the tune of ₹6.10 lakhs, which demonstrates that the
complainant was engaged in commercial financial dealings of this nature.
These facts, taken together, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s claim
that there was a concluded sale transaction, especially when no sale deed
was executed. Counsel emphasizes that the subsequent sale of the property
to a third party in January 2023 does not alter the nature of the earlier
financial arrangement. Rather, the entire set of circumstances supports the
petitioners’ stand that the payment was in the form of a loan arrangement
and not consideration for transfer of property.
6. Mr. Sharma further submits that the SIDBI letter dated 17.09.2024
clarifies that a different parcel of land was mortgaged in 2015 and released
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
only in January 2024, and not the subject property acquired by the
petitioners in June 2017. He argues that a property purchased in 2017 could
not possibly have been mortgaged in 2014, and this discrepancy further
weakens the prosecution’s case. The complainant’s claim that original
documents of the subject property were shown to him contradicts the
allegation of mortgage, since no mortgaged property’s originals could have
been so displayed. It is also pointed out that petitioner Neeraj Batra executed
the subsequent sale deed while petitioner Rajan Batra only signed as a
witness, thereby diluting allegations of direct involvement. In sum, it is
argued that the consistent interest payments, statutory returns, and
documentary evidence all demonstrate that the ₹95 lakhs constituted a loan
transaction and not an agreement to sell, and custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is therefore unwarranted. To support his submissions, reliance
has been placed upon Radheshyam and ors v. State of Rajasthan and anr.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311.
7. Mr. Pahwa, Learned senior counsel for the complainant, submits that
the subject property forms part of a larger tract of land, different portions of
which were acquired by the complainant at various point of time. He
contends that there are five ongoing FIRs of a similar nature against the
petitioners, reflecting their habitual fraudulent conduct. It is further argued
that the letter issued by SIDBI clearly records that the entire land in question
was mortgaged with the bank at the relevant time. Counsel submits that
despite this subsisting mortgage, the petitioners misrepresented the title and
executed an agreement to sell with the complainant. He further points out
that the SIDBI loan was repaid only in 2025, thereby confirming that the
property was under encumbrance throughout the period of transaction.
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
8. Learned APP for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application by
submitting that despite entering into an agreement to sell with the
complainant, the petitioners sold the same property to third parties, thereby
cheating the complainant. It is contended that the petitioners deliberately
avoided investigation, as despite service of notice under Section 41A
Cr.P.C., they neither appeared nor cooperated, and instead absconded by
selling their flat, vehicles, and changing their mobile numbers. The APP
further points out that NBWs were issued and proceedings under Section 82
Cr.P.C. have already been initiated, and two co-accused are presently in
custody. It is stressed that anticipatory bail is not a rule but an extraordinary
remedy, which in the present circumstances ought not to be granted.
9. It is further urged that custodial interrogation of the accused is
necessary to effect recovery of the cheated amount, trace the other co-
accused who has absconded, and obtain specimen signatures of the accused
for FSL examination. The property in respect of which the agreement to sell
was executed was already mortgaged with SIDBI Bank, yet the accused
fraudulently entered into the transaction with the complainant. Investigation
has revealed that the complainant’s amount of ₹95 lakhs was immediately
transferred to the accused persons’ partnership firm and used to discharge
their debt obligations, showing dishonest intention from inception.
Moreover, the present applicant is found to be involved in at least five other
similar cases registered in Delhi, Gujarat, and Haryana, thereby
demonstrating a repeated pattern of fraudulent conduct.
Analysis and Conclusion
10. The court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned senior counsel for the
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
complainant, and the learned APP for the State. The principal contention
urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the transaction in question was
essentially a loan arrangement and not an agreement to sell, as is evident
from the continued payment of interest till October 2023. Reliance has also
been placed on Radheshyam(supra), to contend that the matter, at best,
gives rise to a civil dispute. On the other hand, the complainant and the State
have highlighted multiple instances of fraudulent conduct, deliberate
avoidance of investigation, and suppression of material facts. The factual
matrix of the present case requires consideration in light of the settled
principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail.
11. At the outset, the reliance placed on Radheshyam (supra) by the
petitioners appears wholly misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court noted
that the FIR disclosed only a commercial dispute without any allegation of
dishonest or fraudulent inducement. However, in the present case, the FIR
itself clearly alleges that the petitioners, despite executing an agreement to
sell and receiving substantial consideration of ₹95 lakhs, proceeded to sell
the subject property to third parties. The dishonest intention is further
revealed from the fact that the said amount was immediately transferred to
the petitioners’ partnership firm and utilized to discharge pre-existing debt
obligations. This factual distinction takes the present case outside the scope
of Radheshyam (supra).
12. The record further indicates that the petitioners have repeatedly
avoided the investigative process. Despite service of notices under Section
41A Cr.P.C. and Section 94 BNSS, the petitioners failed to join the
investigation on multiple occasions. Non-Bailable Warrants and proceedings
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been initiated, which demonstrates
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
deliberate defiance of the process of law. The conduct of the petitioners in
selling their flat, vehicles, and changing mobile numbers to evade arrest only
strengthens the apprehension that they are likely to abscond. In such
circumstances, the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be lightly
brushed aside.
13. The submissions of the learned APP regarding the necessity of
custodial interrogation also merit acceptance. The cheated amount remains
to be recovered, and the petitioners’ custody is required to trace other
absconding co-accused and to obtain specimen signatures for FSL
examination. Further, the SIDBI Bank’s reply to section 94 BNSS notice,
does not confirm that the subject property was mortgaged at the relevant
time, falsifying the petitioners’ defence that the property could not have
been sold to the complainant. The allegations of misrepresentation regarding
mortgage status further reinforce the dishonest intention from inception.
These factors demonstrate that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would
seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation.
14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners are also found to be involved
in at least five other FIRs of a similar nature in Delhi, Gujarat, and Haryana.
Such repeated conduct demonstrates a consistent pattern of fraudulent
dealings and undermines the argument that the present transaction was a
mere civil dispute. The multiplicity of cases across jurisdictions points to
systematic abuse of trust and dishonesty in business dealings. Courts have
consistently held that habitual offenders do not deserve the discretionary
protection of pre-arrest bail. This aspect weighs heavily against the
petitioners.
15. In SFIO v. Aditya Sarda 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764, the Supreme
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
Court reiterated that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438
CrPC is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional circumstances, as clarified in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of
Bihar 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282. The Apex Court emphasized that
anticipatory bail cannot be treated as a rule since its indiscriminate use may
impede investigation, enable tampering of evidence, or result in miscarriage
of justice. While interim protection may be granted in fit cases to safeguard
individual liberty, persons against whom warrants or proclamations under
Sections 82/83 CrPC have been issued, or who continuously defy the
authority of law, cannot ordinarily invoke this jurisdiction. This position was
further reinforced in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 14
SCC 516, where the Court disapproved the grant of anticipatory bail by the
High Court despite the accused being an absconder against whom
proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC had been initiated, holding that such
relevant considerations must be treated seriously and not ignored casually.
16. Having considered the entirety of the circumstances, I am of the view
that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations
disclose dishonest intention, fraudulent misrepresentation, and deliberate
evasion of the process of law. The petitioners’s repeated involvement in
similar cases across jurisdictions further aggravates the seriousness of the
accusations. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court
inAditya Sarda (supra) and Srikant Upadhyay (supra) as well as Prem
Shankar Prasad (supra), anticipatory bail cannot be granted to habitual
offenders who have absconded and obstructed investigation. Accordingly,
the present application stands rejected.
17. However, it is clarified that any expression made herein shall not
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35
tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
AUGUST 18, 2025/na
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 25/08/2025 at 21:41:35