Delhi High Court
Anita vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 August, 2025
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.08.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 1201/2025
ANITA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. H.N. Pandey, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with IO/Inspector Vikas Malik, PS
M.S. Park.
Ms. Kalyani, Advocate for the
Complainant.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant, a lady aged 56 years seeks anticipatory bail in
case FIR No. 03/2024 of PS M.S. Park for offence under Section 420/34
IPC. The complainant de facto is son-in-law of the accused/applicant.
Between the accused/applicant and the complainant de facto as well as
between the accused/applicant and her daughter (wife of complainant de
facto), certain civil suits are pending. Broadly speaking, the allegation
against the accused/applicant in the present case is that she entered into an
Agreement to Sell an immovable property with the complainant de facto but
despite having received part payment, she executed Gift Deed of the subject
property in favour of her son.
BAIL APPLN. 1201/2025 Page 1 of 3 pages
2. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for the accused/applicant
submits that a case of pure civil liability has been given colour of
criminality. Besides, it is also submitted that being a lady, the
accused/applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
3. On the other hand, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for
complainant de facto and IO/Inspector Vikas Malik opposes the anticipatory
bail application largely on the ground that the money paid to the
accused/applicant has to be recovered and paid back to the complainant de
facto. It is submitted by learned APP that the FSL report of thumb
impressions purported to be of the accused/applicant on the Agreement to
Sell remained inconclusive but her thumb impressions on the bayana receipt
were found to be genuine in the FSL report.
4. In response to a specific query, the IO/Inspector Vikas Malik submits
that apart from recovery of the part sale consideration received by the
accused/applicant, nothing else has to be recovered from her.
5. I have examined the investigation file including the Agreement to
Sell. On the reverse side of the stamp paper of the Agreement to Sell are
certain thumb marks alleged to be of the accused/applicant, but the forensic
analysis in FSL Report could not establish the same. More importantly, the
manner in which the alleged payment entries are handwritten on the reverse
side of the stamp paper raises suspicion. The entry dated 18.09.2022 appears
to have been initially given serial no.1, which was overwritten as serial no.3.
Between the payment at serial no.3 and 4, two entries in comparatively
BAIL APPLN. 1201/2025 Page 2 of 3 pages
smaller fonts have been inserted and given no.1 and 2. These aspects appear
to have not been scrutinized by the IO. It is also made clear that this is only
a prima facie observation, recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding
liberty of the accused/applicant and the IO is yet to investigate on this.
6. To recapitulate, the accused/applicant is a lady closely related to the
complainant de facto and in view of the multiple civil suits between the
parties, it also appears to be a property dispute between two siblings, in
which they have dragged their mother.
7. Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to deprive the
accused/applicant liberty. Therefore, the application is allowed and it is
directed that in the event of her arrest, the accused/applicant shall be
released on bail subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 5, 2025/ry
BAIL APPLN. 1201/2025 Page 3 of 3 pages
