Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Kuldeep Sugandh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2985/2024|CRL.M.C. 4687/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav M. Liberhan, Nishant Datta, Chirag Rathi, Dinesh Kashyap, Aayush Kumar, Sumant Vyas
For the Respondents: Ajay Vikram Singh, Deepak Kumar Yadav, Vikas Pahwa, Ayush Puri, Sultan Haider Jafri, Urvija Sharma, Anirudh Bakhru, Shadmaan Siddiqui, Vaibhav Prasad Singh

Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless there is clear evidence of misuse of liberty or perversity. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration and completion of investigations constitute valid changes in circumstances that justify the ongoing exercise of judicial discretion in favor of granting bail.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Cancellation of bail - Principles for cancellation - Bail once granted cannot be set aside without cogent evidence of misuse of liberty, influence on witnesses, or a gross illegality in the original order. (Paras 43, 53)

(B) Bail - Grant of - Change in circumstances - Passage of significant time in custody and the completion of the investigation process constitutes a material change in circumstances justifying a fresh evaluation of an accused person's liberty. (Paras 44, 48)

(C) Speedy Trial - Personal Liberty - The right to a speedy trial as a facet of fundamental rights necessitates that courts balance the gravity of the alleged offense against the prolonged incarceration of the accused when there is no immediate likelihood of trial completion. (Para 45)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery related to property transactions. The petitioner challenged the lower court orders on the grounds that there was no change in circumstances since the previous rejection of bail, citing the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of the accused absconding.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation stood concluded with the filing of the chargesheet and supplementary documents. It noted that the accused had remained in custody for a considerable period and that the trial had not proceeded significantly. The court held that a long period of detention and the completion of investigation constitute a valid change in circumstances, and the accused satisfied the triple test of being neither a flight risk nor a threat to the integrity of the evidence.

Issues: The main issues were whether the lower court's grant of bail was erroneous due to a lack of change in circumstances and whether the accused posed an ongoing threat of obstructing the administration of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that appellate interference with a bail order is restricted to instances of perversity or misuse of liberty. Given that the investigation was complete and the accused had established that they were not a flight risk, the extended duration of judicial custody provided sufficient justification for the lower court's discretion in granting bail.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual genesis of fir 83/2023. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. petitioner's argument against bail based on lack of changed circumstances and gravity of offense. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. state submission detailing incriminating evidence and investigation progress. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
4. extended custody constitutes material change of circumstances favoring bail eligibility. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
5. satisfaction of triple test and completion of investigation justifies bail. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. dismissal of petition for cancellation of bail. (Para 54)

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The two Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Kuldeep Sugandh, for the recall of the Order dated 04.04.2024, vide which the Accused No. 3/Jitin Pal Singh Pahwa, and Order dated 18.05.2024, vide which the Accused No. 2/Gunveen Pal Singh in the respective Petitions, have been granted Bail in FIR No. 83/2023 by the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

2. The facts in brief are that the Complainant is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. WZ-315A, admeasuring 145 Sq. Yds., Khasra No. 276, 277, Village Nangal Raya, known as Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi, along with his brother, vide Sale Deed dated 05.11.2019. His three brothers/co-owners relinquished their rights in the subject property vide Relinquishment Deed dated 16.08.2018, whereby the Complainant/Petitioner became the absolute owner.

3. In the year 2019, the Accused No. 3/Jitin Pal Singh Pahwa, along with Accused No. 2/Gunveen Pal Singh, introduced themselves as property brokers and got a deal negotiated between the Complainant and the Accused Nos. 1 and 4, who were the original owners, for the purchase the property bearing No. G-34, Green Park, New Delhi. In lieu thereof, the Complainant agreed to sell his property at Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi, to them. It was further agreed that part payment for the Green Park property would be made by the sale of the Lajwanti Garden property of the Petitioner and the differential amount of Rs. 1 Crore shall be paid in addition. The commission of Respondent was agreed to be Rs. 20 lakhs, payable after the final mutual transfer of both properties.

4. The Complainant made a total payment of Rs. 70 lakhs through his bank transfers, into the account of Accused No. 1. The original documents of both properties were exchanged in December 2022, and the original documents of the Green Park property were handed over to the Complainant through Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Complainant, however, sought some time to vacate the suit property as he required time to shift out in a hurry because the documents had to be executed.

5. The Complainant executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the Accused No. 3/Jitin Pal Singh Pahwa. However, subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the Accused No. 3/Jitin Pal Singh Pahwa, along with Accused No. 2/Gunveen Pal Singh, unauthorizedly executed two registered Sale Deeds dated 28.12.2022, registered on 30.12.2022. The Green Park property was sold to a third party on 16.11.2022 despite having received the payment of Rs. 70 lakhs from the Complainant.

6. A Civil Suit bearing CS(OS) No. 39/2023 titled ‘Kuldeep Sugandh vs. Ajit and Ors.’ for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 29.12.2022 and for recovery of Rs. 2.24 lakhs and Mandatory Injunction was filed under the Specific Relief Act, wherein an Ex-parte Interim Injunction was granted in favor of the Complainant by this Court, vide Order dated 20.01.2023.

7. On 21.04.2023, the present FIR No. 0083/2023 was registered against nine Accused, including Accused Nos. 2 and 3, the Respondents herein. They were arrested on 24.06.2023 and were remanded to Police custody. Thereafter, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed an Application for Bail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JKuldeep Sugandh – AppellantVersusState Of Nct Of Delhi – RespondentCRL.M.C. 2985/2024|CRL.M.C. 4687/2024

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Kuldeep Sugandh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2985/2024|CRL.M.C. 4687/2024