Manoj Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

¶1

$~6 to 8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 116/2026 & CRL.M.A. 971/2026 OM PRAKASH YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Mr. Rachael Tuli & Mr. Sai Kumar Krishna, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. (7)

¶4

BAIL APPLN. 1359/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10667/2026 MANOJ YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Mr. Rachael Tuli & Mr. Sai Kumar Krishna, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP. (8)

¶7

BAIL APPLN. 259/2026 & CRL.M.A. 2132/2026 RAVI YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chirag Madan, Mr. Rachael Tuli & Mr. Sai Kumar Krishna, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP.

¶8

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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:26

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.07.2026

¶10

All three applications have been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (‘ BNSS ’) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 190/2023 dated 22.04.2023 registered under sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S.: Prem Nagar-I, Kirari, Delhi.

¶11

The facts, as revealed by the investigation, appear to be that a property bearing Plot No. F-126 (Old No. F-125), Khasra No. 1300, Prem Nagar-I, Kirari, Delhi (“ Said Property ”) was originally purchased by Manoj Kumar from Mahavir Bansal in the year 2000. Thereafter, in the year 2005, Manoj Kumar transferred the Said Property to his wife. On 09.09.2019 Sushila Devi is stated to have sold the Said Property to the complainant Ram Mehar. It is stated that despite execution of sale documents, the applicant Manoj Kumar and his family continued to occupy the property as tenants, illegally re-entered and disposed the complainant.

¶12

The investigation also seems to have revealed that prior to the sale in favour of complainant, Manoj Kumar and his wife had mortgaged the original documents of the same property with Shiva Co-operative society for obtaining a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is also contended that despite having sold the Said Property, Manoj Kumar created forged documents and sold/transferred the said property in favour of Vijay Kumar Sisodhiya, who in turn transferred it to Anil Kumar.

¶13

Qua Om Prakash and Ravi Yadav, both being sons of Manoj Kumar,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:26

¶16

it is alleged that both of them had knowledge of the entire chain of events pertaining to forging the chain of title documents, and played an integral part of the entire scheme. Specifically, qua Om Prakash it is stated that he is obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Shiva Co-operative Society on 15.02.2022 by using forged documents in name of her mother Smt. Sushila Devi, concerning the Said Property.

¶17

With respect to applicant Manoj Yadav, chargesheet has been filed, however, with respect to applicants Om Prakash Yadav and Ravi Yadav, the chargesheet has not yet been filed.

¶18

Vide order dated 08.04.2026, all three applicants were granted interim protection by this Court, whereby, subject to them joining investigation, further coercive steps were prevented. The applicants are stated to have appeared as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’).

¶19

In Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat ,¹ the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is warranted in cases where the allegations are primarily documentary in nature and custodial interrogation is not essential. The Court emphasised that when the investigation can be completed by examining official records and there is no material to show evasion or likelihood of tampering with evidence, pre-trial detention serves no purpose. It reaffirmed the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted in such cases, subject to the accused’s cooperation with the investigation which reads as under:

¶20

“ 18 . However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the matter is to be investigated primarily based on documentary evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The offences alleged pertain to the exercise of administrative discretion in the

¶21

1 SLP (Crl.) No. 354/2019, order dt. 28.02.2019.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:26

¶24

passing of an order rather than direct physical involvement in any overt criminal act requiring custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not demonstrated any necessity for the custodial interrogation of the appellant beyond scrutiny of official records, which can be done without placing him in detention. Additionally, the appellant has expressed his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and no material has been placed before this Court to suggest that he has evaded or obstructed the investigation in any manner. Furthermore, it is well-settled that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not essential, particularly in cases where the allegations hinge on official records and the presence of the accused can be secured without pre- trial detention. The Court also takes note of the fact that the FIR in question is part of a series of similar allegations against the appellant, and in the absence of any concrete material indicating a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the grant of anticipatory bail is justified. Accordingly, while the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required, he shall not be taken into custody, subject to conditions imposed hereinafter to ensure his participation in the inquiry process. ”

¶25

Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, specifically that each of the applicants have cooperated with the IO, and have further undertaken to cooperate, as also the allegations being documentary in nature, there is no requirement of the applicants being interrogated in custody. It be also noted that the investigation with respect to Manoj has already been completed.

¶26

It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest, they be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned IO. 10. The applications are accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶28

JULY 23, 2026 ab/sa

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 25/07/2026 at 11:24:26

Manoj Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinkoo Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Smt. Indu Bala

Sh.Shiv Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Phool Singh & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Avdhesh Kumar Goel Vs State ( NCT of Delhi)

Vipul Gupta Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.