$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 2666/2025, CRL.M.A. 20729/2025, CRL.M.A.

20730/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1548/2025 UBAIDUR RAHMAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocate.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Sumeet Poonia.

Ms. Puneeta Kapur, Advocate for complainant de facto.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

263/2025 of PS Vivek Vihar for offence under Section 420/406/34 IPC.

2. This anticipatory bail application came up for the first hearing on 21.07.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. By way of order dated 15.12.2025, the BAIL APPLN. 2666/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2 5 . 6 N 5 9 . : 4 a c . f 2 = 3 0 I 9 N = 6 , 8 2 o 4 c = 0 6 H 1 fb d IG 4 d 8 H 8 3 8 C 5 9 O d b 4 U 2 3 R 7 5 a T f 7 9 O 7 7 F b 6 2 2 D f 6 E 6 c L 5 a H f c I c , a e , 4 afec45 ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIAp se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 1 = 1 d 0 3 0 e 0 8 3 6 , 7 st 9 = 6 D 4 e 5 l 1 h e i, c 45c07b5d1557 Digitally Signed 0 cn 9 = 96 G b IR 4 I 0 S f H 8 0 K c A b T d H 2 P e A ee LI 6 A 0 402c487965f801e26fa, By:DIKSHA RAWAT Date: 2026.03.12 17:27:52 -07'00'

predecessor bench granted interim protection to the accused/applicant from arrest. Thereafter, along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application was transferred to this bench and today is the first hearing before me.

3. Broadly speaking, prosecution case, as explained by learned counsel for complainant de facto is as follows. The accused/applicant entered into an agreement with the complainant de facto under which the accused/applicant was to manufacture products which would be exported to Saudi Arabia by the complainant de facto. The payment received from Saudi Arabia client was to be shared between the complainant de facto and the accused/applicant. Initially, transactions were running smooth and even advance payments were received by the complainant de facto to be used for manufacturing of the product. However, subsequently, the Saudi client did not make payment. Hence, this complaint alleging cheating against the accused/applicant.

4. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Sumeet Poonia as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto

5. Learned counsel for accused/applicant argues that it is only a commercial dispute between the complainant de facto and Saudi Arabia clients, which has been given colour of criminality, roping in the BAIL APPLN. 2666/2025 Page 2 of 5 pages D B Si y i g g :D i n ta a I l K t l u y S r H S e i A g N n R o ed A t V W e A ri T fied G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops76D e .5 0f uo iN a 5 a r g 6 9 =s t i . , :4 a i e t 9 9 t H c c al . : a a 6n 2 N = lI 2 l f C b G 0 = I 3 u 0 yN 4 o = H G 9 m 2 0 s, d 86 6I i C o fR be g 42 . 8 = 0 O I =e 0 n c 0S3 H r 16 1U e Hc= . df 1 1 Id b R b G d K 0 d 2 d T b 4 3 H A 0 8 2 1 8 y O e0 8 Te 7 C 3 83 G F H 9 e : O 5 6 2 , b e I P Dd 7 R s 7 U2 6A tE4 9 I : R = 7 0 4 S L L3 6 H a 4 T 1 D I H5 4 A 7 0 O - e f 5 I K 7 2 0 9,lC 1 AF h b c 7 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 5 accused/applicant.

6. Learned APP for State submits that the IO did not submit any status report, so it is only on the basis of verbal instructions that he would address. It is submitted by learned APP for State that the Saudi clients are relatives of the accused/applicant. In this regard, learned APP for State refers to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 05.08.2013 between the accused/applicant and complainant de facto in which the accused/applicant undertook to be solely and exclusively responsible to market and ar