BAIL APPLN./403/2026 of RAJ KUMAR @ RAJU Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 27 July 2026

O R D E R

%

27.07.2026

1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 490/2025, dated 31.05.2025, registered at Police Station Burari, under Sections 338/336(3)/340(2)/61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. I have heard Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Shreya Gulati, learned counsel for the complainant. The prosecution has placed a status report dated 27.03.2026 on record.

3. The prosecution case, as it appears from the status report, is as follows:

a. The FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, who is an advocate, with regard to creation of forged documents in respect of his immovable property [measuring 5 Bigha, 8 Biswas of Khasra Number 29/5, Khatuni Number 50/47 at Salempur Mazra, Burari].

b. Upon inquiry, the complainant alleged that the aforesaid acts were committed by one Mr. Satya Prakash, alongwith some other local persons.

c. During inquiry, it came to light that Mr. Satya Prakash had lodged a complaint with Police Station Burari against Mr. Kapil Tyagi and others, stating that the complainant’s father – Mr. Gajender Singh, had executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of the part of the aforesaid property in his favour. It was alleged that Mr. Kapil Tyagi and other were erecting illegal construction on the land.

d. The complainant produced documents to show that his father had in fact died in December 1996.

e. Mr. Satya Prakash was arrested on 15.07.2025. He disclosed the involvement of the petitioner, who was also arrested on the same date.

f. During investigation, certain documents were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner and Mr. Satya Prakash, being original Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney [“GPA”], Special Power of Attorney, receipt and will dated 02.07.1996, allegedly executed by Mr. Gajender Singh and in favour of Mr. Om Prakash, father of Mr. Satya Prakash, and a similar set of documents dated 16.06.2008, executed by Mr. Om Prakash in favour of Mr. Satya Prakash.

g. Other property documents have also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Original cheques issued by Mr. Kapil Kohli and Mr. Rajeev Kumar in favour of whom the GPA was granted in respect of the property were also recovered at the instance of the petitioner and Mr. Satya Prakash. Call Detail Record [“CDR”] connectivity was found between the petitioner, Mr. Satya Prakash and other co-accused. It is alleged that the forged and fabricated documents, using old stamp papers, notary and stamp vendor stamps and their signatures were prepared by co-accused Mr. Ramesh Chand.

h. It is alleged that the petitioner was the mastermind of this conspiracy with the assistance of co-accused Mr. Santosh and Mr. Satya Prakash.

4. The Nominal Roll placed on record shows that as on 17.03.2026, the petitioner was in custody for a period of 6 months and 13 days. I am informed that he was granted interim bail vide order dated 15.04.2026, and was released for a period from 27.05.2026 until 09.06.2026. He has thus been in custody for a period of approximately 10 months.

5. Mr. Sharma submits that the chargesheet having being filed, and the evidence being largely documentary, the petitioner may be released on regular bail. He submits that the petitioner was not the person named in the FIR, and the material attributed to him in the status report only concerns the recovery of documents and cheques, which are already in the possession of the Investigating Officer [“IO”]. He further submits that the petitioner, in fact, been granted interim bail three times, and has surrendered on time. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is advanced in age, being 57 years old, and has medical ailments.

6. Mr. Chauhan and Ms. Gulati, however, submit that the offences in the present case are serious and involve forgery of documents related to an immovable property. The offence, in fact, constitutes the foundation of an attempt at land grabbing. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has four prior FIRs, for which purpose, the previous convictions/involvement report has been annexed to the status report.

7. Mr. Sharma submits, in rejoinder, that the alleged prior involvements all relate to the period from 1992 to 2011, and he is on bail in all those proceedings.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to release the petitioner on bail.

9. The petitioner is 57 years old and suffering from various medical ailments. Further, as noted above, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, although the role attributed to him in the status report is that he was the mastermind of the offence, and the documents recovered from him are also in the possession of the IO. There is no further recovery to be made. In cases involving largely documentary evidence, the Supreme Court has held that continued custody of the accused awaiting trial is generally unjustified. To this effect, reliance may be made to Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1291] and Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate [2026 SCC OnLine SC 30]. The petitioner has been granted interim bail on three occasions and has, on each occasion, surrendered within the stipulated time, with no allegations of misuse of liberty. The CDR connectivity is also insufficient at this stage, without any material regarding the contents of the conversation to establish the involvement of the petitioner.

10. As far as the prior involvements of the petitioner are concerned, I find that, even assuming the report furnished by the prosecution to be correct, all the involvements date back to the period from 1992 to 2011, in which he is enlarged on bail. It is not always the case that pendency of proceedings by itself would result in denying bail to an accused. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2020) 11 SCC 648].

11. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail in connection with FIR No. 490/2025, dated 31.05.2025, registered at Police Station Burari, under Sections 338/336(3)/340(2)/61, subject to furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Duty Magistrate/Trial Court, and subject to the following further conditions:

a. The petitioner shall provide his permanent address to the Trial Court, as also the address where he is residing during the pendency of the case. The petitioner shall intimate the IO, and file an affidavit before the Trial Court, regarding any change in residential address;

b. The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the concerned IO/Station House Officer, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior intimation to the IO during the pendency of the trial;

c. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;

d. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing;

e. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the period of his release.

12. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.

13. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

14. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 27, 2026 SS/AD/