$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 27.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 11.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 13.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 841/2026 & CRL M.A. 6405/2026 MANOJ YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Arora, Ms.

Prathana and Ms. Tulika, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State.

Ms. Maya Dagar and Mr. Mohit Dagar, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 125/2023, registered at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’).

2. Briefly stated, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Smt. Sangeeta Devi, who alleged that during her absence from Delhi on 22.02.2023, the applicant Manoj Yadav @ Mannu, along with his wife Lata Yadav, illegally took possession of her plots bearing Nos. 381 and 382, Khasra No. 15/2, situated at Hans Nagar Colony, Pandwala Kalan, New Delhi. It was alleged that the accused persons claimed ownership of the said plots on the basis of false and fabricated documents, demanded money to vacate the plots, and extended threats. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 448 and 506 of the IPC.

3. As per the status report, during investigation the complainant had produced documents showing a chain of title tracing the property from the original owner Tara Chand to Rambabu, thereafter to Narender Kumar Sharma, and finally to the complainant Sangeeta Devi. The location and boundaries mentioned in her documents were found to tally with the actual site, and the plot on the southern side was found to be Plot No. 380. It is stated that the applicant’s wife, Lata Yadav, also produced documents claiming ownership of the same plots. However, the location and boundaries mentioned in those documents did not match the actual site. Discrepancies were further noticed between the photocopies earlier submitted and the original documents later produced, particularly with respect to the number of signatures of one Satyapal Singh appearing on the documents. During further investigation, Rajender Kumar Sharma, whose signatures appeared as an attesting witness in the documents relied upon by the accused, joined the investigation and denied having witnessed any transaction in favour of Satyapal Singh. He stated that the signatures appearing on the documents were forged. His statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The original documents produced by co-accused Lata Yadav were seized and sent to FSL. As per the FSL report, the signatures attributed to Rambabu and Rajender Kumar Sharma on those documents were opined to be forged, though no conclusive opinion could be given regarding the signatures of Satyapal Singh for want of sufficient specimen signatures. Further, records obtained from Delhi Jal Board revealed that the water connection at the disputed plots stood in the name of the complainant and had been installed prior to the alleged date of illegal possession. The documents used for obtaining the said water connection were found to be the same as those produced by the complainant during investigation. Some neighbours of the disputed property also informed the I.O. that the plots were in possession of the complainant and her husband, and they denied having seen the applicant or his wife in possession prior to the dispute. Records from BSES showed that co-accused Lata Yadav had applied for a new electricity connection on 21.02.2023, which was later cancelled. During site inspection, an existing electricity meter was found installed at the site. The documents supplied to BSES were also found to be inconsistent with the original documents later produced by the accused. Investigation further revealed discrepancies