CRL.M.C./4089/2026 of GURNAM KAUR Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 30 September 2026

O R D E R

%

30.09.2026

1. The Petitioner is the complainant in FIR No. 479/2025 registered at PS Sagarpur for offences relating to the alleged fabrication and use of documents concerning property bearing No. B-222, Dashrathpuri, Village Nasirpur, New Delhi. By order dated 7th April, 2026, the ASJ granted regular bail to Respondent No.2, Brij Mohan Arora. The present petition under Section 483(3) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks cancellation of that bail.

2. Mr. N. K. Bhambri, counsel for the Petitioner, has taken the Court through the material collected during investigation. Particular emphasis is placed on the prosecution case that the documents dated 24th May, 2001 were purportedly executed at a time when the Petitioner’s husband was outside India; that the notarial endorsement attributed to Shri P.K. Khosla is itself suspect; and that Respondent No.2 has taken inconsistent stands regarding possession of the original chain of documents. It is further urged that the originals have still not been produced and that further investigation is continuing. These aspects, according to the Petitioner, were not properly appreciated while granting bail.

3. A further challenge is directed to paragraph 10 of the impugned order. The submission has substance to this limited extent. Although Sections 466 and 467 IPC were amongst the offences for which Respondent No.2 had been charge-sheeted, the ASJ proceeded, while assessing punishment, on the footing that the maximum sentence was seven years and referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI1. The order also described the investigation as complete, whereas the charge-sheet itself contemplated further investigation. These observations do not accurately reflect the record.

4. These errors, however, do not by themselves justify cancellation of bail. Once bail has been granted, the Court does not reconsider the matter as though it were hearing the bail application afresh. As explained in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2, cancellation of bail on account of subsequent circumstances ordinarily requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. A different consideration arises where the order granting bail is itself shown to suffer from arbitrariness or perversity. In such a case, this Court may 1 (2021) 10 SCC 773 2 (1995) 1 SCC 349

examine whether material considerations were ignored or the discretion was exercised on an untenable basis3.

5. Tested on that standard, this Court is unable to hold that the order granting bail is one which calls for being undone. The ASJ had before it the prosecution’s case regarding the disputed documents, their alleged fabrication, the non-production of the originals and the apprehensions expressed by the Investigating Officer4. The IO’s opposition to bail was expressly recorded. The Court thereafter considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, that the case rested predominantly on documentary material, that no flight risk was asserted and that no criminal antecedents had then been shown. Bail was also made subject to express conditions against influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. Viewed in the context of the order as a whole, the said errors do not, by themselves, render the exercise of discretion so arbitrary or perverse as to warrant interference.

6. The pendency of further investigation does not, by itself, warrant cancellation of bail. The State’s status report confirms that the charge-sheet has been filed, though investigation concerning the original documents and certain other aspects remains pending. The report does not indicate that custodial interrogation of Respondent No. 2 is presently required. The alleged non-cooperation, including the failure to produce the original documents, relates to the investigation preceding the grant of bail and was part of the material available to the ASJ. No subsequent refusal by Respondent No. 2 to join the investigation or comply with any lawful direction of the IO has been brought to the notice of this Court.

3 Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia, (2020) 2 SCC 118 4 “IO”

7. The material concerning the absence of the alleged executant from India, the notarial endorsement and the conflicting stand regarding the original documents is undoubtedly relevant to the prosecution case. Its evidentiary effect, however, will have to be determined at the appropriate stage. A petition for cancellation of bail cannot become a fresh adjudication of the prosecution case on merits.

8. The Petitioner also alleges misuse of liberty after release. It is stated that her attorney has received calls from persons claiming to be property dealers, asking that the matter be settled and the criminal complaint withdrawn, coupled with threats that the property would otherwise be encroached upon. The allegation is serious. The difficulty, however, is that the material presently placed before the Court does not connect any identified caller with Respondent No.2. The State’s status report also does not report any verified instance of Respondent No.2 having threatened a witness, tampered with evidence or otherwise violated a condition of bail. On this material alone, the allegation cannot furnish a basis for cancellation.

9. Reliance on the civil proceedings instituted by Respondent No.2, his complaint to the MCD, or the application subsequently moved in the civil suit does not take the matter further. These events substantially precede the grant of bail and formed part of the controversy already available for consideration. They cannot, without something more, be treated as subsequent misuse of the concession of bail. Equally, the allegation that Respondent No.2 has adopted a similar course in other civil disputes cannot be equated with criminal antecedents. The State has not placed any verified previous criminal involvement of Respondent No.2 on record; the SCRB search appended to the status report records no matching involvement.

10. Thus, although the two errors in the impugned order noticed above cannot be overlooked, they do not, viewed in the context of the order as a whole, render the grant of bail arbitrary or perverse. Nor has any subsequent conduct of Respondent No.2 been established which would justify withdrawal of the liberty already granted.

11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. Respondent No.2 shall remain bound by all the conditions imposed by the order dated 7th April, 2026 and shall join further investigation as and when lawfully required. Needless to say, any substantiated attempt to threaten a witness, interfere with the investigation or breach the conditions of bail would be open to be dealt with in accordance with law.

13. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case pending before the Trial Court.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/hc