$~10 & 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28.03.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 4915/2025 KRISHNA DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. Sahil Malik, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Shivang, Ms. Tanisha Malik, Mr. Ayush Kumar Singh, Ms. Kashish Ahuja, Mr. Arjan Mandla, Mr. A. Akhtar, Ms. Vashundhara N. and Ms.

Vashundhara Raj Tyagi.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State with IO/SI Harendra Singh.

Mr. Pramod Gupta and Ms. Anshu, Advocates for R-2.

+ BAIL APPLN. 4916/2025 AVTAR DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. Sahil Malik, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Aditya Jain, Mr. Shivang, Ms. Tanisha Malik, Mr. Ayush Kumar Singh, Ms. Kashish Ahuja, Mr. Arjan Mandla, Mr. A.

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 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 3 f H r 12 G 1U e 8= . dc 1 2 Id 0I R G d R 6 0 d 8 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 0K , b I e D3 7 R s 9A U2 e 5 tE 9 I :T R = 7 4 S e dL 6 H H a 6 T 5 D 4H 4 7 0 P 3 O - e5 I K 7 4 0 , A 5 lC 1 AF h b 0 7L 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 , Akhtar, Ms. Vashundhara N. and Ms.

Vashundhara Raj Tyagi.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, APP for State with IO/SI Harendra Singh.

Mr. Pramod Gupta and Ms. Anshu, Advocates for R-2.

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

1. The accused/applicants seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 163/2025 of Police Station EOW, New Delhi for offence under Section

406/420/120B of IPC.

2. In furtherance of last orders, I have heard learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicants as well as learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Harendra Singh. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto 3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Mr. Sharad Chhabra and Mrs. Neena Chhabra, alleging that the accused/applicants entered into an oral agreement to sell an immovable property admeasuring about 2000 square yards out of 4000 square yards and despite having accepted the sale 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 DD26Cps0cD e n .9 9 oO iN a 5 r g = a 9 s t i . U :4 a i e f t 6G tc 3 aR l . : a b 2 N = I 9 l 2 T R l C 4 0I 6 u 0 y I N 0 oO = S 2 m 2 f s, d H 8cF 6 8 io be g 46 . 0 D K = 0 =e 0f n c b A3 E H r 1 1 e b= 4 . L T d 1 2 Id d G H8 d H 0 d 8 2 b 3 3 H I0 P 8 e , 1 5 y C e0 A 8 e 8 C d 8 I3 G 9 eL D : O 4 6 0 , b I6 I A 3 7 R s 9 U - 2 0 t 5 9 I : 7 R = 7 4 3 S f 6 0 H a 0 T 3 9 D4 4 7 2 7 O - e5 K 7 7 c 0 6 l1 AF 6 4 h b 7 2 e 3 8 T i ' 26 D 0 ,c 8 7 H fc 4 E 0 6 , 9 a P 5 L ' 5c 6 AH c fc 50 LI a f , 7 I , A e 8b o4 05 ua 1d =f e e 1 H 2 c 5 I 6 4G 5f 5 7a H5 , By:DIKSHA RAWAT consideration of more than Rs. 8 crores, they are now refusing to hand over possession of the said property, which was agreed to be sold.

4. The stand taken by the accused/applicants is that Mr. Sharad Chhabra and the accused/applicant Avtar Dhankar were jointly engaged in the business of construction and carried out a number of construction projects together. As regards the property which is subject matter of the present dispute, the accused/applicants claim that the entire property admeasuring about 4000 square yards is owned by the accused/applicant Ms. Krishna Dhankar and the entire property was to be constructed upon and developed by the accused/applicant Avtar Dhankar and the complainant de facto Sharad Chhabra. As per the accused/applicants, there was no agreement with regard t