$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24^th March 2026 + BAIL APPLN. 817/2026, CRL.M.A. 6279/2026 RAM SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Avtar Singh and Ms. Ayushi Agarwal, Advocates.

versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates.

SI Neeraj and Insp. Sohan Lal.

Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Mayank Kamra, Ms. Sanya Kashyap, Mr. Manbhar Mittal, Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 24.03.2026 By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 („BNSS‟), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 322/2025 dated 30.10.2025 registered under sections 318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 („BNS‟) at P.S.: Crime Branch, Delhi („subject FIR‟). Consequent upon completion of investigation against co-accused persons, allegations of offences under sections 316(2)/341/342/218 of the BNS have been added vidé chargesheet dated 17.02.2026 filed in the matter.

2. The petitioner has not yet been chargesheeted since investigation qua him is still underway.

3. Notice on this petition was issued vidé order dated 25.02.2026.

4. Status Report dated 03.03.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.

5. The court has heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel for the State; and Mr. Tanmay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

6. Based on the allegations made by the complainant – Ms. Babita Mittal – in her complaint dated 13.06.2025, the subject FIR came to be registered. It is the case of the prosecution, that the petitioner – Ram Singh – has committed offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and mis-appropriation of funds to the tune of about Rs. 12.04 crores in conspiracy with the following other accused persons viz., (i) M/s MG Leasing & Finance, (ii) Mr. Mohit Gogia, (iii) Mrs. Shweta Gogia, and (iv) Mr. Bharat Chhabra alongwith other unknown accused persons.

7. The allegations in the subject FIR that are material for a decision of the present anticipatory bail petition are that sometime in August 2024, Mohit Gogia and his wife, Shweta Gogia, representing an entity called M/s MG Leasing & Finance, had approached the complainant‟s husband through an intermediary, Mr. Abhinav Pathak, who claimed that Mohit Gogia was authorised to facilitate the purchase of properties auctioned by banks under the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 („SARFAESI Act‟) at attractive prices.

8. More specifically, the complainant alleges that the accused persons had represented to them that they had already purchased a valuable property bearing No. 220, 20^th Floor, Tower 2, DLF Camellias, DLF Golf Course, Sector 42 Gurgaon, Haryana („subject property‟) in the name of M/s MG Leasing & Finance, for about Rs. 27 crores. The accused persons had assured the complainant that she would be added as a co-buyer and later made the sole buyer through a no-objection certificate issued by the bank. The accused persons had further convinced the complainant that the title of the subject property was clear and that possession of the property would be handed-over to the complainant within a few weeks.

9. The complainant alleges that by reason of the aforesaid representations, between August 2024 and October 2024, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 12.04 crores via RTGS transactions and demand drafts to the bank account of M/s MG Leasing & Finance. The complainant alleges that Mohit Gogia claimed to have paid the balance sum of about Rs. 15 crores, which amount was to be reimbursed by the complaina