Complainants challenged a trial court order granting regular and anticipatory bail to accused persons in an FIR over sale of disputed property by alleged impersonation. The High Court found no specific allegations against the co-accused, no misuse of bail, and nothing perverse or illegal in the orders, and dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10 to 12
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State. Ms. Seema Singh, Mr. Dayanand Sharma, Mr. Bharat Brobota and Mr. Shabhit Jaiswal, Advs. for R-2.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State.
RAHUL TYAGI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Surinder Singh and Mr. Rishabh Chawla, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State.
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 1 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 05.09.2024
CRL. M.C. 7150/2023, CRL. M.C. 7159/2023 & CRL. M.C. 7260/2023
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 2 of 9
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
Yadav on 23.07.2019. However, denying the same, the aforesaid property was misrepresented by the accused persons as being owned by Renu Devi . It was also stated that since the children were minors, they had transferred their power of attorney to their mother, Renu Devi , who was legally authorised to sell the said property.
Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the aforesaid property was the subject matter of civil litigation and resultantly, served a legal notice dated 30.01.2023 upon the accused persons. It is also contended that Mukhtiar Singh had fraudulently registered a Sale Deed dated 31.10.1996 in his favour from its owner, Sukh Ram , qua the said property, which was challenged by a civil suit for Declaration and Mandatory Injunction, wherein vide Judgement and Decree dated 04.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the said Sale Deed was declared invalid. Furthermore, a portion of the subject property measuring 200 yards had earlier been sold to one Satish Yadav on 26.05.2003 by the accused persons and despite that, the accused persons wrongly sold the said property including the abovestated portion of 200 yards, to the petitioners.
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 3 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
rightly executed a Gift Deed on 23.07.2019 in favour of his children, Rashmi Yadav and Dheeraj Yadav . It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have created a false and fabricated General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Renu Devi , dated 15.06.2005, and in support of the contention, it has been pointed out that the said GPA was neither signed by Renu Devi , nor bears her photograph. It is also submitted that in this regard, the accused persons have preferred a complaint against the petitioners for forgery at P.S. Uttam Nagar and P.S. Ranhola, however, the same were not acted upon due to the influence of the petitioners. Furthermore, it is contended that the dispute is purely of civil nature regarding the recovery of money and the present FIR is filed merely for the purpose of pressurising the accused persons. It is also submitted that the Agreement to Sell dated 12.01.2022 has not been enforced by the petitioners as they have made only a part payment, however, have already taken possession of the subject property. As per the said Agreement to Sell, the petitioners were supposed to make the balance payment of Rs.12,40,00,000/- at the time of execution of transfer documents, on or before 31.01.2023, however, the same was not complied with. Lastly, the accused persons claim innocence on false implication.
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 4 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
However, concededly, an appeal was filed thereon and a settlement was entered into between the two sons of Sukh Ram , as per which, the subject property was to fall in the share of Mukhtair Singh . It is also not disputed that up till the Agreement to Sell dated 12.01.2022 was executed between the accused persons and the petitioners, the said property was in the possession of the accused persons. It is also noted that presently, the possession of the said property is with the petitioners, even though they have not made the part payment of Rs.12,40,00,000/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs.13,40,00,000/-. The question of title regarding the said property is pending before the Civil Court, and is not within the ambit of this matter, at this stage.
SCC 496 , the Supreme Court observed:
‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 5 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
released on bail;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.’
92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
“10.It has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 6 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected.”
‘16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted…’
‘27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 7 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order…’
observed as follows:
‘29. In Jagjeet Singh (supra)11 , a three-Judges bench of this Court, has observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law. In ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail...’
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 8 of 9
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
cheating, inter alia , have been made only against the co-accused, Mukhtiar Singh . It is also noted that qua Rashmi Yadav , the only role attributed is being the beneficiary of the said Gift Deed and a witness of the said Agreement to Sell. As regards Mukhtiar Singh , no allegation of violating any of the bail conditions have been made and a reading of the impugned order does not indicate that it was passed on irrelevant considerations or is illegal or perverse.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
SEPTEMBER 5, 2024 na
CRL.M.C. 7150/2023 & other connected matters Page 9 of 9
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:40:03
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's orders granting regular bail to Mukhtiar Singh and anticipatory bail to Renu Devi and Rashmi Yadav should be cancelled.
Whether the impugned bail orders were perverse, illegal or based on irrelevant considerations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis ChatterjeeRelied on¶7
(2010) 14 SCC 496 · Who else cites this
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶8
(2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Puran v. RambilasRelied on¶9
(2001) 6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias PoliaRelied on¶10
(2020) 2 SCC 118 · Who else cites this
Ajwar v. WaseemRelied on¶11
2024 SCC OnLine SC 974 · Who else cites this
Manik Madhukar Sarve and Others v. Vitthal Damuji Meher and OthersRelied on¶12
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271 · Who else cites this
Rahul Tyagi & Anr.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
