$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 3578/2024 HARVINDER SINGH SODHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lalit, Ms. Mehak Kalra, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Mr. Lakshay Sahrawat, and Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocates.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO AMAR COLONY POLICE STATION SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Sachin Kumar.

Mr. Amit Tiwari, 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.

206/2024 of PS Amar Colony for offence under Section 406/420/506 IPC.

1.1 This anticipatory bail application came up for the first hearing on 04.10.2024 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 1 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 DD25ops52D e .5 76 uo iN a 5 r g 6 0f =s t i . a :4 a i e t 9 9 t H c , al . : a a 9 2 N = c lI 2 l f C 6 G n 0I 3 u 0 yN b o = = H9 m 2 4 s, d 8 G 6 6 i C o 0be g 42 .I = 0 f O R =e 0 n c 8 3I H r 16 1U e 0S = . df 1 1 Id Hc Rb G d0 d 8 b T b 4 3 H K 0 8 d 1 8 y O e A 0 8 2 4 C 3 83 G F 9 Te : O 5 6 2 , H b I e Dd 7 R s 7 U2 eP tE4 9 I : R = 7 6 0 S A L3 6 H a 0 T 1 DH L 5 4 7 4 I O - e f 5 I K A 7 0 0 9,lC 1 AF h b 2 7 7 e I T i c ' 26D D 0 ,c 4 H f2 4 E 0 6 - 8 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 7 c AH c f 0 9 a 0 LI 4c 6 , 7 I c A 7 5 e b a6 4 f 5 ,3 a 8d f 8 0 e 1 , 1 c 5e 4 adjourned before different benches. Vide order dated 04.10.2024, the predecessor bench granted interim protection to the accused/applicant from arrest, which protection continued on date to date basis till date. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned senior counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto.

2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The accused/applicant is father-in-law of niece of the complainant de facto. The accused/applicant allegedly induced the complainant de facto to pay money under the pretext that the former would purchase land in the joint name of both of them, but later on, the accused/applicant purchased the land in his individual name and sold it further to make profits.

3. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that no offence is made out even if prosecution case is believed as it is. It is contended that the transaction between the parties was a simple loan transaction, but colour of criminality has been given only to armtwist the accused/applicant. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of judicial pronouncements has given a note of caution that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be exploited for settling the civil disputes.

BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 2 of 5 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4af ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -

Digitally Signed KATHPALIA7 s 1 e 0 5 r 4 5 ia 7 7 l 6 0 N 3 9 u 8 9 m , 6 p b b o 4 e s 0 r t = f a 8 d l 0 C 3 c o e b d 8 d e 6 2 = 7 e 9 1 e 6 1 e 4 0 6 5 0 0 1 0 4 e 3 0 c , 2 4 s c t 5 = 4 c 8 D 0 7 7 e 9 b lh 6 5 i , d f By:DIKSHA RAWAT f D 8 a 0 t 1 e e : 2 2 6 0 f 2 a 6 , . c 0 n 3 = .1 G 8 I R 1 I 4 S : H 26 K :5 A 1 T H -0 P 7 A '0 L 0 IA '

4. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Sachin Kumar strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the facts mentioned above clearly make out an offence of cheating for the reason that the accused/applicant took money from the complainant de facto by misleading him that the property to be purchased shall be in joint name of the partie