[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Yusuf Khan vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi ) Through Sho on 24 February, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 645/2024
YUSUF KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr. Anant
Chaitanya Dutt, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI ) THROUGH SHO .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with IO/SI Harish, PS Gandhi Nagar.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
505/2022 of PS Gandhi Nagar for offence under Section 420/34 IPC.
2. 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
BAIL APPLN. 645/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569
af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557099
6b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.24 18:09:30 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
18:20:48
accused/applicant and learned APP assisted by IO/SI Harish.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
BAIL APPLN. 645/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3
962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b
40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.24 18:09:19 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
18:20:48
the subject property. It is also submitted by the IO that original chain of title
deeds remains with the bank only.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
BAIL APPLN. 645/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.24 18:09:07 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:24.02.2026
18:20:48
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.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.24 18:08:53 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 24, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLN. 645/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages
