Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./398/2026 of RAJIV BANSAL Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 23 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010028332026 + BAIL APPLN. 398/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3018/2026, CRL.M.A. 6052/2026, CRL.M.A. 8182/2026, CRL.M.(BAIL) 196/2026 RAJIV BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ayush Jain, Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar Singla, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI
$~7
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010028332026
+
BAIL APPLN. 398/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3018/2026, CRL.M.A.
6052/2026, CRL.M.A. 8182/2026, CRL.M.(BAIL) 196/2026
RAJIV BANSAL
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Ayush
Jain,
Mr.
Abhimanyu
Kumar Singla, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Manon Pant, APP with Ms, Kajal
Bhandar and Mr. Sachin, Advs.
Mr. Ankit Rana, Mr. Bharat Khurana,
Mr. Mukul Malik, Mr. Sanjay Kumar
SI Rupesh Raj, PS Subhash Place,
Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 23.09.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. By way of the present application, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”), the applicant/accused is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 20/2026, registered at P.S. Subhash Place, Delhi, for the commission of an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the Legal Notice as well as in the Agreement itself, the complainant has only stated that he had given a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- to the petitioner through RTGS. He further submits that the complainant has also filed a suit for recovery before the Rohini Courts and, in Gujarat, has filed a suit for specific performance, wherein he has also stated that he had given a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- through RTGS. However, subsequently, a story has been put forth by the complainant that he had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,07,08,583/- in cash. He further submits that the cash receipt is disputed, as it does not bear the signatures of the petitioner, and the FSL report is still awaited.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned APP for the State submit that there was an Agreement to Sell wherein a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- was paid through RTGS, whereas the remaining sum of Rs. 1,07,08,583/- was paid in cash by the complainant. However, subsequently, the petitioner refused to sell the plot or return the money, and, therefore, the dispute arose.
5. The Court has heard both the parties.
6. The parties were sent for mediation on 02.02.2026; however, the same also failed.
7. There is a specific assertion by the complainant that he gave a sum of Rs. 1,07,08,583/- in cash to the petitioner, which the petitioner has subsequently denied.
8. It is a matter of common knowledge that a plot admeasuring 8,066 sq. yards could not reasonably be valued at a mere sum of ₹24,00,000/-. The intention of the petitioner is clear from the very inception of the execution of the documents.
9. No ground for exercise of the discretionary powers is made out. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/b/yt