Allowed

Priyanshi Sharma v. State through Ps Janakpuri

Delhi HC20 May 2026BAIL APPLN./1990/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail in a Section 420 IPC case over non-payment for a second-hand Mercedes purchased in the applicant's name by her husband. Court held it prima facie civil liability, noted delayed arrest efforts and welfare of two-month-old infant, granted bail on personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on arrest upon furnishing personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety in like amount.

Priyanshi Sharma Vs State through Ps Janakpuri — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16326/2026

¶5

PRIYANSHI SHARMA .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Mohd. Salman, Mr. Nazar Husssain and Mr. Ahmad Saeed, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE THROUGH PS JANAKPURI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Deepak Patwal

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 191/2023 of Police Station Janakpuri for offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶12

Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is as follows. Mr. Daksh Sharma ( husband of the accused/applicant ), employed with the complainant de facto , purchased one second hand Mercedes Benz car from complainant de facto for a sum of Rs. 41,00,000/-. Mr. Daksh

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb 4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.20 05:15:35 +05'30'

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 17:20:07

¶18

Sharma represented his wife, the present accused/applicant as purchaser. Thereafter, the said car was taken by the co-accused Vinod Paswan to Hathras. According to the complainant de facto , the said car is in possession of the present accused/applicant and cost of the same has not been paid to him. It is also alleged by prosecution that the said car was neither returned nor its cost was paid despite directions of this Court.

¶19

On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended by the learned counsel that the said car stands returned to the complainant de facto . Learned counsel for accused/applicant has also referred to Annexure P-8 to the application, according to which, the complainant de facto had filed a civil suit for recovery of the car and that suit was withdrawn by him after return of the car. Besides, it is also submitted that the accused/applicant delivered a child in the month of April 2026, so she deserves not to be sent to jail.

¶20

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Deepak Patwal accepts notice and opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that similar application of the husband of the accused/applicant was rejected and he has not surrendered till date. It is also contended that till date cost of that car has not been paid to the complainant de facto , though the car was returned. It is submitted that since the present accused/applicant was in custody of the said car, the return thereof subsequent to the offence is of no consequence. According to the IO, the alleged cheating is that Mr. Daksh Sharma represented his wife as his cousin.

¶21

BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026

¶22

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶23

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb 4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb KATHPALIA d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.20 05:15:52 +05'30'

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 17:20:07

¶26

Prima facie , it appears to be a case of civil liability where Mr. Daksh Sharma, having purchased the car, did not pay cost thereof and subsequently, when the car was returned, the civil suit filed by the complainant de facto was withdrawn.

¶27

Merely because, husband of the accused/applicant has not surrendered after dismissal of his anticipatory bail application, the relief of anticipatory bail cannot be denied to the accused/applicant.

¶28

Further, one wonders as to what benefit would Daksh Sharma derive by falsely declaring his wife as his cousin, that too before his own employer, while purchasing the car.

¶29

There is another aspect. The FIR was registered on 16.07.2023 and according to the IO/SI Deepak Patwal, the steps taken by him to arrest the accused/applicant are that he conducted raids in Hathras on 16.01.2024 and 28.03.2024; he also issued notices to the accused/applicant on 21.01.2024 and 22.01.2024 to join investigation; and on 18.02.2026, he tried to execute warrants against her. No other effort was made by the IO to arrest the accused/applicant. Had the IO taken timely action to arrest the accused/applicant, if it was so required, another living being would not have come into this world and this Court is not able to ignore welfare of that two months old infant, especially in view of overall facts and circumstances narrated above. It seems that State is not even interested to arrest the accused/applicant, and rightly so in view of the above discussion.

¶30

BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026

¶31

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶32

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6f b4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.20 05:16:09 +05'30'

¶33

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 17:20:07

¶35

I do not find it a fit case to deny liberty to the accused/applicant, so the present application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO. Accompanying application also stands disposed of.

¶36

It is made clear that none of the above observations shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the stage of final arguments and at that stage, learned trial court shall take independent view on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.

¶37

GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4 afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5 d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879 65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.20 05:16:22 +05'30'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

MAY 20, 2026/ as

¶41

BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:2 0.05.2026 17:20:07

Priyanshi Sharma v. State through Ps Janakpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanshi Sharma v. State through Ps Janakpuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar@Deepu Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Naginder Singh Vs Geeta Thakur

Ramesh Kumar Suneja Vs State Govt.of NCT of Delhi

Asha Alias Vidya Vs State of NCT Delhi

Sanjay Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Natasha Malik Vs Zubair Bedi