BAIL APPLN./44/2025 of SUDEEP SINGH Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 44/2025SUDEEP SINGH.....PetitionerSUDEEP SINGH.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. R. Krishnaamorthi, Advocateversus

STATE NCT OF DELHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the Statewith SI Dhananjay Gupta, PS KirtiNagarwith SI Dhananjay Gupta, PS KirtiNagar

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

%18.02.2025

1.The present application filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[1](formerly Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973[2]) assails order dated 16[th]November, 2024whereby the ASJ, West District, Delhi dismissed the Applicant’s request forgrant of regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 75/2020 registeredunder Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[3]at P.S.Kirti Nagar. The Applicant has now approached this Court seeking regularbail in the aforesaid proceedings. In the said FIR, chargesheet has beenfiled and the Applicant is additionally charged with Section 467 of IPC.

1 “BNSS”

2 “Cr.P.C.”

3 “IPC”

2.A copy of the status report has been handed over across the Board andis taken on record.

3.Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

3.1The present FIR has been registered on complaint filed by one Mr.Ishpreet Singh under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in compliance with orderdated 4[th]February, 2020.

3.2In the said complaint, the Complainant alleged that the Applicant andhis wife, who were employed as caretakers of his grandfather, had forgedand fabricated the documents of the property bearing No. 6/15, RameshNagar, Delhi[4]owned by the Complainant’s grandfather. The Complainanthad stated that despite the fact that his grandfather had executed Will withrespect to the said property in favour of his daughter, i.e., mother of theComplainant, this fact came to his notice after the death of his grandfather.Upon being apprised of the same, the Complainant called upon theApplicant and his wife to vacate the subject property.

3.3During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses wererecorded and the Will executed by the deceased was also verified and foundto be genuine. The persons who had witnessed the said Will were examinedand they confirmed the execution of the Will by the deceased.

3.4Subsequently, notices were issued to Applicant and his wife with thedirections to join the investigation and produce the documents purported tobe executed by the owner of the property in their favour and also disclosethe source of money allegedly paid by them to the deceased and provide

4 “the subject property”

details of the witnesses who allegedly witnessed the documents executed bythe deceased in their favour.

3.5Although the Applicant joined investigation, he neither provided thenecessary documents nor provided the details of the witnesses who hassigned the said documents. Hence, the Applicant was arrested and after thecompletion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.

4.Counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant has been injudicial custody since 8[th]April, 2024 and since chargesheet has been filed,no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the Applicant in custody. Hehighlights that civil proceedings in respect of the subject property arecurrently pending. It is further stated that the Applicant has no criminalantecedents and undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail, if the samewere to be granted.

5.Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, on the other hand, stronglyopposes the present bail application. He submits that the Applicant’sprevious bail applications have been dismissed by the Trial Court throughorders dated 2[nd]August, 2024 and 16[th]November, 2024. He states that theoffence in the present case is serious in nature. He highlights that the wife ofthe Applicant, who is co-accused in the present case, is absconding.Additionally, further investigation regarding involvement of the persons inthe commission of crime is pending. It is apprehended that the Applicant islikely to be in default of the bail conditions, if the same were to be granted.6.The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. It is wellestablished through catena of judgments by the Supreme Court that theobject of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim

sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accusedperson at the trial.[5]The nature of the allegations, although serious, primarilystems from property dispute, wherein the Complainant contends that theApplicant and his wife fraudulently acquired ownership documents of thedeceased’s property. The prosecution’s case hinges upon the Applicant’salleged failure to produce the documents purportedly executed in his favourand disclose details of the financial transactions with the deceased. Theseaspects, though relevant to the trial, do not, at this stage, justify theApplicant’s continued detention.

7.Notably, the Applicant has remained in custody since 8[th]April, 2024,and the investigation against him stands concluded. The matter is presentlyat the stage of framing of charges. The allegations in the FIR pertain to adispute over the ownership of the property, which also forms the subjectmatter of civil proceedings initiated by the Complainant. It is pertinent tonote that the Applicant himself had earlier filed civil suit, though he laterwithdrew the same. This reinforces the civil nature of the underlyingdispute, making prolonged incarceration unnecessary after conclusion ofinvestigation.

8.Additionally, it is undisputed that the Applicant has no prior criminalantecedents, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has previouslyattempted to interfere with the investigation or influence witnesses. In suchcircumstances, continued incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose.As regards the apprehension of the prosecution that the Applicant may

5 See also: Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

abscond or default on bail conditions, the Court finds that this concern canbe effectively addressed by imposing stringent conditions ensuring hiscontinued presence during trial.

9.In view of the foregoing, the Applicant is directed to be released onbail on furnishing personal bond for sum of INR 50,000/- with twosureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, onthe following conditions:

a.The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case ortamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

b.The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country withoutthe permission of the Trial Court;

c.The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and whendirected;

d.The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residingafter his release and shall not change the address without informing theconcerned IO/ SHO;

e.The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to theconcerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times;

f.The Applicant shall report to the concerned P.S. on the first Mondayof every month.

10.In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodgedagainst the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal byfiling an application seeking cancellation of bail.

11.It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for

the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influencethe outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the case.

12.The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

FEBRUARY 18, 2025/ab

SANJEEV NARULA, J