Arvind Dalal Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 1343/2026 ARVIND DALAL

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. D. Pandey and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State with SI Nandan Singh. Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr. Lakshya G., Advocates for complainant alongwith complainant in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 17.07.2026

¶12

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.60000800/2026 dated 11.02.2026 registered at e-Police Station for commission of offences under Sections 318(4)/319/340 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding Sections 420/419/471 IPC).

¶13

When the abovesaid application was taken up by the learned Predecessor Bench on 07.04.2026, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant was permitted to join the investigation, with the direction to the Investigating Agency not to take any coercive process against him.

¶14

Such order continues to be in operation.

¶15

It will be also worthwhile to mention that, initially, when the matter

¶16

BAIL APPLN. 1343/2026 1

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 18/07/2026 at 11:20:09

¶19

was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre , it returned back as “ not settled”. However, learned counsel for the parties made fresh endeavour pursuant to which, the parties have been able to reach amicable settlement and in terms, thereof, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been placed on record dated 15.07.2026.

¶20

Such MoU is signed by both the sides i.e. applicant- Arvind Dalal as well as respondent/complainant-Nidhi Katula @ Nidhi Chawla. 6. The applicant has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing and respondent is present in person. They both are duly identified by respective counsel and I.O. 7. During course of the consideration, both the sides assured that they would adhere to the terms of the settlement as specified in the abovesaid MoU dated 15.07.2026.

¶21

As per the complainant, the amount in question is of Rs.35 lacs and she has already received approx. a sum of Rs.7.50 lacs. As per the terms of the agreement, another sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs has been handed over to her today and, therefore, as on date, the balance outstanding is of Rs.25 lacs. She submits that in view of the terms of the settlement, she would have no objection if the bank accounts in question, which had been freezed by the Investigating Agency on the basis of her request, are released/de-freezed.

¶22

I.O. who is present in Court states that in view of the abovesaid MoU, the copy of which has also been given to him, he would send requisite instructions to the concerned banks.

¶23

As per the terms of the agreement, the balance payment has to be made by the end of October, 2026 and the parties have even agreed to file appropriate petition seeking quashing of the FIR in question.

¶24

BAIL APPLN. 1343/2026 2

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 18/07/2026 at 11:20:09

¶27

In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would have no objection if the interim relief granted to the applicant is made absolute. He, however, submits that, in case, the terms are not complied with by the applicant, he may be permitted to revive the present application. 12. In view of the above, the abovesaid interim order is, hereby, made absolute and it is been directed in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, subject to the satisfaction of arresting officer/IO/SHO.

¶28

Needless to say, in case, there is any violation of the terms of the abovesaid MoU, the parties would be at liberty to revive the present petition.

¶29

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶30

JULY 17, 2026/ss/sk

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 1343/2026 3

¶32

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 18/07/2026 at 11:20:09

Arvind Dalal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Dalal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh Alias Aditya Vs State NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps Najafgarh

Viresh @ Alok Vs State NCT of Delhi

Amit Goel & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mukesh Saini Vs Sachin Saini

Alok through Pairokar Abhilash Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Surinder Kumar Seth & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.