Allowed¶30

Yusuf Khan v. the State (Gnct of Delhi ) through SHO

Delhi HC24 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC, Bail Appln. 645/2024, Girish Kathpalia J., 24.02.2026 — anticipatory bail ALLOWED under FIR 505/2022 PS Gandhi Nagar, Section 420/34 IPC (loan default and sale of mortgaged property held not automatically cheating where only lender-bank complains; no buyer complaint/civil suit; no forgery alleged; title deeds with bank; OTS process noted; chargesheet filed). Bail condition: personal bond Rs. 10,000/- plus one like surety to IO/SHO.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, the accused/applicant to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. ¶30

Yusuf Khan Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi ) through SHO — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused/applicant Yusuf Khan in FIR No. 505/2022, PS Gandhi Nagar, for offence under Section 420/34 IPC. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Considering the overall circumstances, the court found no reason to deprive the accused/applicant of liberty, and accordingly allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release on bail in the event of arrest subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Not every case of financial indiscipline can be treated as cheating where the complaint is lodged by the lender; whether the accused sold the mortgaged property to pay back the loan and meet financial needs needs to be ruled out through full-dress trial.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail granted — Delhi High Court (Girish Kathpalia, J.), 24.02.2026, Bail Appln. 645/2024: Applicant accused in FIR No. 505/2022, PS Gandhi Nagar, under Section 420/34 IPC, alleged to have taken a 2012 loan from Bank of India against a mortgaged immovable property and sold the mortgaged property in 2015 without repaying the entire loan; FIR registered on the lending bank's complaint, with no purchaser lodging any criminal complaint or civil suit, and the complainant bank reportedly in One Time Settlement process with the applicant. IO stated there was no allegation of forgery of chain of title deeds, which remain with the bank. Court held that not every case of financial indiscipline can be treated as cheating when the complaint is lodged by the lender, and that whether the sale was to repay the loan needed full-dress trial. Chargesheet already filed after completion of investigation; no reason found to deprive the accused of liberty. Application allowed — release on bail in event of arrest on personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 24.02.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 645/2024

¶5

YUSUF KHAN .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr. Anant Chaitanya Dutt, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI ) THROUGH SHO .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/SI Harish, PS Gandhi Nagar.

¶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. 505/2022 of PS Gandhi Nagar for offence under Section 420/34 IPC.

¶12

This anticipatory bail application got listed before the predecessor bench for the first time on 22.02.2024 and vide order dated 28.02.2024, the predecessor bench granted interim protection from arrest. Thereafter, the application remained pending before different benches and has been assigned to this bench as a part of 179 old pending bail applications. Today being the first date before me, I have heard learned counsel for

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 645/2024

¶14

Page 1 of 4 pages 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: 2026.02.24 18:09:30 -08'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:2 4.02.2026 18:20:48

¶17

accused/applicant and learned APP assisted by IO/SI Harish.

¶18

Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he took a loan in the year 2012 from Bank of India and mortgaged his immovable property, but without paying back the entire loan amount, he sold away the mortgaged property in the year 2015. The purchaser of the said property, further sold away the same. None of the purchasers lodged any criminal complaint against the accused/applicant. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the lending bank.

¶19

On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended that a purely civil dispute of money lending has been given colour of criminality. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant and also reflected from orders of the predecessor benches, that the complainant de facto bank is already under process of One Time Settlement with the accused/applicant.

¶20

On the other hand, learned APP opposes this anticipatory bail application on the ground that selling a mortgaged property is clearly a case of cheating. Further, learned APP also submits that in his confessional statement, the accused/applicant stated before the IO that he sold away the mortgaged property as he was in need of funds.

¶21

Against the above backdrop, in order to understand the status of investigation, a query was put to the IO, and he stated that there is no allegation that the accused/applicant forged any of the chain of title deeds of

¶22

BAIL APPLN. 645/2024

¶23

Page 2 of 4 pages 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: 2026.02.24 18:09:19 -08'00'

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:2 4.02.2026 18:20:48

¶26

the subject property. It is also submitted by the IO that original chain of title deeds remains with the bank only.

¶27

Since the original title deeds remain with the bank, according to prosecution, there is no complicity of any bank employee in ensuring sale of the subject property.

¶28

So far as the argument that sale of mortgaged property is cheating, learned prosecutor in all fairness admits that usually, in such cases no criminal complaint is lodged by the banks. Further, it needs to be ruled out through full dress trial that the accused/applicant sold away the property to pay back the loan amount and meet other financial needs. Not every case of financial indiscipline can be treated as cheating, when it comes to complaint lodged by the lender. As mentioned above, the FIR was registered on the complaint of the lender bank and it is not that any of the buyers lodged any complaint alleging cheating. Rather, as submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant, the buyers also never even filed any civil suit against the accused/applicant pertaining to the sale of the said property.

¶29

Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty. More so, because chargesheet has already been filed after completing the investigation.

¶30

The application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 645/2024

¶32

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶33

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: 2026.02.24 18:09:07 -08'00'

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:2 4.02.2026 18:20:48

¶36

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.

¶37

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
GIRISH c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.24 18:08:53 -08'00'

¶38

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶39

FEBRUARY 24, 2026/ ry

¶40

BAIL APPLN. 645/2024

¶41

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:2 4.02.2026 18:20:48

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

Yusuf Khan v. the State (Gnct of Delhi ) through SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf Khan v. the State (Gnct of Delhi ) through SHO

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

Vinod Kumar Chauhan & Anr. Vs Bhalinder Ghai

Ravi Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Mr. Anish Vs State through SHO Gtb Enclave

R. Usha @ G. Usha Vs Central Bureau Investigation

Ali Mohsin Vs the State (G)Ovt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sangeeta Vs State of NCT of Delhi