Allowed¶7

Ranjeet v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC9 Jul 2026BAIL APPLN./428/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ranjeet; regular bail granted; BAIL APPLN. 428/2026; High Court of Delhi; 09.07.2026; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.; Section 483 BNSS r/w Section 528 BNSS; FIR No.550/2024 PS Aman Vihar; Sections 420/406/34/467/468/471/120B IPC; forged title documents; plot C-Block Rama Vihar Mohammadpur Majri; sale consideration Rs.14,50,000/-; main accused Vipin expired; charge sheet filed; charges not framed; custodial interrogation not required; about 5 months incarceration; opposing FIR No.361/2024; bail subject to Trial Court conditions; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged/released on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the concerned Trial Court; the instant application along with accompanying applications stands disposed of. ¶7

Ranjeet Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged/released on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the concerned Trial Court; the instant application along with accompanying applications stands disposed of.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ranjeet should be enlarged on regular bail in relation to FIR No.550/2024, PS Aman Vihar, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34/467/468/471/120B IPC.

¶1

Court's answer

Grounds for bail found satisfied: the main accused Vipin, shown as owner of the property, has expired; the charge sheet has been filed against Rahul and the present applicant; the matter is fixed for framing of charges; custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required; and the applicant has already suffered about 5 months incarceration.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the present applicant on regular bail and directed his release on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.), Order dated 09.07.2026 in BAIL APPLN. 428/2026 — Regular bail granted to Ranjeet under Section 483 BNSS r/w Section 528 BNSS in respect of FIR No.550/2024, PS Aman Vihar, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/34/467/468/471/120B IPC. Prosecution case: co-accused Vipin, in connivance with the applicant and Rahul, forged the title documents of a plot at C-Block, Rama Vihar, Mohammadpur Majri, Delhi, falsely projected himself as owner and sold the property to the complainant for Rs.14,50,000/-. The Court found that the main accused Vipin had expired, the charge sheet had been filed against Rahul and the applicant with charges yet to be framed, custodial interrogation was no longer required, and the applicant had suffered about 5 months incarceration; accordingly it enlarged him on regular bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court, and disposed of the application along with accompanying applications. Bail was opposed by the State citing FIR No.361/2024 (almost similar offence) and an allegation that the applicant fabricated documents in the name of Vipin.

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

BAIL APPLN. 428/2026 RANJEET .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suraj Prakash Sharma, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

¶6

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State. SI Ankesh, Aman Vihar. Mr. Ankit Mann, Ms. Jyoti Shokeen, Advocates for complainant.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 09.07.2026

¶8

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) r/w Section 528 of the BNSS seeking grant of regular bail in relation to FIR No.550/2024 registered at PS Aman Vihar qua the offence punishable under Sections 420/406/34/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and is innocent. According to him, the property was shown to be belonging to one Vipin. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.04.2025 and has already

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:01

¶12

suffered more than 15 months incarceration. The investigation is complete; charge sheet has been filed but the charges have not yet been framed and the trial will take sufficient time in its completion.

¶13

The said submissions are strongly opposed by learned APP for the State, who contends that besides the instant case, there is another case registered against the applicant bearing FIR No.361/2024 for almost similar offence. It is contended that the applicant has fabricated the document in the name of Vipin. It is, thus, contended that bearing in mind the gravity of the offence, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The prosecution case would indicate that at the instance of complainant, an FIR was registered. The complainant alleged that Rahul approached her at her work place and induced her to purchase the property in question. Through accused Rahul, the complainant was introduced to coaccused Vipin Kumar. It is alleged the co-accused Vipin in connivance with the present applicant and Rahul, forged the title documents of a plot situated at C-Block, Rama Vihar, Mohammadpur Majri, Delhi, falsely projecting himself as the owner, and, thereafter, sold the said property to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.14,50,000/-.

¶15

The Court finds that the main accused namely Vipin, who has shown to be the owner of the property, has expired. Against Rahul as well as the present applicant, the charge sheet has already been filed; the matter is fixed for framing of charges; the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no more required and he has already suffered about 5 months incarceration.

¶16

Bearing in mind all the aforesaid aspects, the Court deems it

¶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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:01

¶19

appropriate to enlarge the present applicant on regular bail. The Court, therefore, directs for the release of the applicant on regular bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the concerned Trial Court.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the instant application along with the accompanying applications stands disposed of.

¶21

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶22

JULY 9, 2026 Nc

¶23

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 10/07/2026 at 11:16:01

Ranjeet v. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet v. the 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

Mohd Shain@ Shahin Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Manish Kumar Vs State Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Ajay Rajput Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Sanjay Lakra Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Shitij Vs State through SHO & Anr.

Arif Khan Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.