Mamta Devi Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

This is one of the old pending 179 bail matters assigned to this bench after transfer from other benches. In the first call, none appeared but matter was passed over in view of its old pendency. In this call, I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for the State assisted by SI Deepak and Inspector Rakesh Kumar. After conclusion of arguments, it was observed that Inspector Rakesh Kumar had signed the status report

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 359/2025

¶15

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.11 17:40:43 -08'00'

¶17

dated 02.05.2025 as SHO, Neb Sarai; but today, throughout the arguments revolving around a false submission in the said status report, Inspector Rakesh Kumar did not point out that he is the author of that report. Today, IO has not come and is stated to be on leave, so the SHO/Inspector Paras Nath has deputed Inspector Rakesh Kumar to appear before this Court.

¶18

The factual matrix, explained by Inspector Rakesh Kumar is as follows. The accused/applicant was registered owner of the first floor of the concerned premises and her husband was the owner of the second floor of the same premises. Husband of the accused/applicant executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the accused/applicant pertaining to the second floor. Thereafter, the accused/applicant executed sale deed of both floors in favour of the complainant de facto along with roof rights. The cheating alleged against the accused/applicant is that she falsely stated in the sale deed that the subject property was free from all encumbrances, whereas she had already mortgaged the first floor with IIFL Finance Home Limited. Besides, the accused/applicant also gave an undertaking/NOC that the subject property is free from encumbrances.

¶19

The admitted position is that there is pendency of cross civil suits between the accused/applicant and the complainant de facto pertaining to the above mentioned transaction.

¶20

In the above backdrop, the accused/applicant was granted interim protection from arrest by the predecessor bench, which protection continued on date to date basis and today is the first date before me. There is no

¶21

BAIL APPLN. 359/2025

¶22

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.11 17:40:32 -08'00'

¶23

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶24

allegation that the accused/applicant, while being under protection has not joined investigation.

¶25

The most serious part of the allegation is that the accused/applicant gave a forged letter of loan closure to the complainant de facto , stating that she had paid back the entire loan amount. Keeping in mind the pendency of cross civil suits, the alleged act of forgery of loan closure letter would become significant while ascertaining criminality involved in the property transaction. And that forgery would be a vital aspect in deciding whether the accused/applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶26

But it would be shocking to note that on being called upon to show that allegedly forged loan closure letter, Inspector Rakesh Kumar, who had stated clearly in paragraph 3 of his status report dated 02.05.2025 about existence of that letter, submits that there is no such letter. No explanation has been advanced by Inspector Rakesh Kumar for making false averment in paragraph 3 of his status report dated 02.05.2025, where he alleged forgery by the accused/applicant. However, Inspector Rakesh Kumar submits that the said status report was prepared by the IO/Inspector Pawan Kumar and that he did not verify the contents before signing the same because these are the allegations of the complainant de facto . But if that be so, it remains unexplained as to why he did not state in the status report that although these are the allegations of complainant de facto , no document was provided in this regard.

¶27

Prima facie , the allegation of forgery does not appear to be truthful

¶28

BAIL APPLN. 359/2025

¶29

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶30

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.11 17:40:19 -08'00'

¶31

and as regards the alleged cheating, cross civil suits are already pending.

¶32

In these circumstances, I find no reason to deprive the lady accused/applicant liberty.

¶33

The 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 concerned.

¶34

In view of contents of paragraph 7 herein, copy of this order be sent to the concerned DCP for information and necessary action.

¶35

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.11 17:40:02 -08'00'

¶36

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶37

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 ‘ rs’

¶38

BAIL APPLN. 359/2025

¶39

Page 4 of 4 pages

Mamta Devi v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Devi v. State (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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Dubey Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Dinesh Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

M/S Rana Iron and Power Limited & Ors. Vs the Registrar of Companies Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs

X Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pritam Kumar@Monty Vs the State(G.N.C.T. of Delhi ) & Anr.

Aman @ Tutta Vs State NCT of Delhi