$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1036/2025 SANGEETA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravindra Kanth, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Krishan, PS Palam Village Mr. Yogesh Sharma and Ms. Pratima Ravi, Advocates with complainant CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 282/2024 of PS Palam Village for offence under Section 420/468/471/448/

380/454/457/34 IPC.

2. This anticipatory bail application got listed before the predecessor bench for the first time on 12.03.2025. Thereafter, the application remained pending before different benches and has been assigned to this bench as a part of 179 old pending bail applications. Today being the first date before me, I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP D B Si y i g g :N i n ta a E l t l E u y T r S e U i g N N n o e N d t A V I e R rified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2cops50D e 4. 51 uo iN a 5 r g 5 7e =s t i .:4 a i 5 e t 2 0 t H c al . : 6 a 69 2 N = lI 2 9 l f C 9 G 0I u a0 y a N 6 o = H , m 2 f b s, d c 83 6 i C o 4n be g 49 . = 0 0 O = =e 06 n 2 f H r 12 G 1U e 8= . dc 1 2 Id 0I R G d R 6 0 d 4 c T b I 3 H f 0 b 8 S b 1 y O e0 8 Hd 8 C 4 83 G F 9 2 : 8 O 6 1K , b I e D3 7 R s 2A U2 e 5 tE 9 I :T R = 7 5 S e dL 6 H H a 6 T 0 D 4H 4 7 0 P 3 O - e5 I K 7 4 0 , A 5 lC 1 AF h b 0 8L f e I T 9 i 2 ' 2 D D I0 ,c A H 7 c f 4 E 0 6 - 4 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 8 2 AH c f 0 7 6 0 LI 4 9 c , 7 I A a7 6 e b c6 4 5 5 c3 a fd af 8 8 e, 1 , assisted by IO/SI Krishan. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto.

3. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that in connivance with her husband, she forged the title documents of the property owned by the complainant de facto. The subject property was originally owned by one Mahavir Singh, who sold the same to Rameshwari. According to the complainant de facto, Rameshwari sold the subject property to him. The said sale documents were sent for forensic analysis and the FSL found signatures of Rameshwari on those documents to be genuine. In other words, title of the complainant de facto over the subject property is genuine, according to prosecution. Further, the allegation of the prosecution is that the accused/applicant and her husband Indal Kumar forged signatures of Rameshwari, showing transfer of the subject property to Vipin Kumar, who sold it to Baljeet Singh, who in turn sold it to Indal Kumar and Indal Kumar gifted the subject property to the present accused/applicant, who is his wife. The accused/applicant has not been providing the IO, original chain of title deeds or even the sale documents from Rameshwari to Vipin Kumar. 4. Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also contended that the original title deeds are not in possession of the accused/applicant. However, in response to a specific query, learned counsel for accused/applicant expresses inability to explain as to why Indal Kumar D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops7fDa e .5 0 uo iN a 5 , r g 6 9 =s tc i .:4 a i e t 9 9n t H c al . : a a 6 2 N = = lI 2 l f C b G 0I G 3 u 0 yN 4 o = H9 m 2I 0 s R , d 86 6 i C o fI be g 42 . 8S = 0 O=e 0 n c H0 2 H r 16 1U e c = .K df 1 2 Id b Rb G d A 0 d 4 d T b 4 3 H 0 8 T 2 1 8 y O e0 H 8 e 8 C 3 83 G F 9 eP: O 5 6 1 , b e I A Dd 7 R s 2 U2 6 t L E4 9 I : R = 7 0 3 S I L3 6 A H a 4 T 9 DH5 4 7 0 O - e f 5 I K 7 2 0 9,lC 1 AF h b c 8 7 e I 4 T i ' 26D D 0 ,c 8 H f2 4 E 0 6 - 7 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 9 c AH c f 0 6 a 0 LI 4c 5 , 7 I c A 7 f e b a6 4 85 ,3 a 0d f 8 1 e 1 , e c 52 4 56 By:NEETU N NAIR had to transfer the subject property to the accused/applicant by way of gift, though there is no bar to do so.

5. On the other hand, learned prosecutor assisted