Anticipatory bail requires exceptional circumstances; it cannot be granted if the applicant's conduct demonstrates deceit and obstruction to investigation.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482 BNSS filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

523/2024 under Section 420 IPC, registered at PS Shakarpur.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations against the petitioner are false, frivolous and motivated and have been made BAIL APPLN. 2034/2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed with intent to harass and humiliate him. It is submitted that dispute is clearly civil in nature which has been given a criminal colour.

3. It is submitted that complainant and another person helped the petitioner and gave him financial aid and got signed various documents and petitioner was also kidnapped. All the payments have been returned by the petitioner but the original receipt is with the complainant and petitioner retains only a photocopy with him.

4. It is submitted that petitioner was well aware of the property to be under encumbrances and still went ahead with the sale of the property. Petitioner also provided his mobile phone containing the video clip in which he and the complainant are seen talking with each other in a bank and in such conversation, the accused had disclosed to the complainant about the order by which the property could not be transferred. He also submitted a pen drive containing the aforesaid footage and the transcript to the IO which clearly reveals that complainant was aware of the visual facts and petitioner had not made any misrepresentation to the complainant.

5. It has been further submitted that petitioner has already joined the investigation and is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

6. Per contra, Ld. APP submits that petitioner had sold the properties, despite there being a subsisting stay order passed by this Court. It has been pointed out that the sale deed falsely recites that the property was free from all encumbrances, legal proceedings, litigation, or injunctions. By concealing the pending litigation, petitioner BAIL APPLN. 2034/2025 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed deceived the complainant and misrepresented the true status of the property. It is submitted that such concealment constitutes a deliberate act of cheating.

7. It has been further submitted by the Ld. APP that nothing of significance has been disclosed by the petitioner during the course of investigation. Custodial interrogation is required inasmuch as the applicant has claimed that he did not execute the sale deed. It is argued that petitioner’s contentions that the complainant was aware of the pending litigation is untenable, and the conduct clearly reflects an intention to cheat.

8. As per allegations, in January 2019, the complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner for the purchase of property No. WB-57A, Ganesh Nagar-II, Shakar Pur, Delhi. A sale deed was executed in 2019, followed by another sale deed in August 2019 for a different portion of the same property. The petitioner repeatedly represented that the property was free from all encumbrances.

9. However, in 2023, the complainant received documents from the court in Contempt Case No. 1415, disclosing that a status quo order was already in force on the property at the time of sale, and the same had been fraudulently concealed by the petitioner. The complainant stated that he was deceived and cheated into parting with a large amount of money based on false assurances.

10. During investigation, certified copies of both the sale deeds dated 05.02.2019 and 09.08.2019 were obtained from the co-purchaser BAIL APPLN. 2034/2025 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Sunil Gupta, who also submitted the documents showing detailed payments made to the petitioner.

11. The status report reveals that petitioner appeared for interrogation under protection