Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma
Rajeev Dhingra – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. The applicant, by way of this application, has sought anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in case arising out of FIR No. 114/2025, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’].
2. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Mr. Nikhil Bajaj against the accused persons, namely Mr. Rajeev Dhingra (the applicant herein), Mrs. Ruchika Dhingra, and Mr. Raj Kumar Dhingra. In the complaint, the complainant stated that in the month of May 2023, the applicant had approached him, expressing his desire to sell a property in Greater Kailash-I, being the Ground Floor with a Front Lawn and Rear Courtyard along with 32.5% undivided, indivisible, and impartible ownership rights in land measuring 300 sq. yards, bearing No. S-28, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi-110048. Upon the assurances and undertakings given by the applicant that he had the requisite title and right to transfer the said property, the
Anticipatory bail can be granted even when Non-Bailable Warrants are issued, depending on the specifics of the case and the applicant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the importance of cooperation with the investigation, and the relevance of pending criminal cases in deciding on anticipatory bail application....
The power of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised in exceptional cases, and custodial interrogation may be necessary for effective investigation in certain cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of anticipatory bail is not warranted when the accused persons are alleged to have cheated multiple parties and have a modus operand....
The court considered the pending civil suit and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation in granting anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, emphasizing that such incarceration should not replicate post-conviction sentencing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations, even if true, may constitute a civil liability rather than a criminal offense, and the pendency of a civil suit for specific perf....
Anticipatory bail requires demonstrating that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; in this case, evidence supported the need for further investigation and interrogation of the applicant.
The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, finding no justification for custodial interrogation given the civil nature of disputes and significant delay in filing the FIR.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
