[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Preeti Aggarwal vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 4 February, 2026
$~1&2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.02.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2674/2025
PREETI AGGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Afroz Khan
and Ms. Sarv Mangla, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with IO/SI Amit Kumar.
Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Advocate for
complainants.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2675/2025
SAURAV AGGARWAL
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain, Mr. Afroz Khan
and Ms. Sarv Mangla, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with IO/SI Amit Kumar.
Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Advocate for
complainants.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
BAIL APPLNs. 2674/2025 & 2675/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages
GIRISH
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6
fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
Signature Not Verified serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80
cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.04 17:30:05 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:04.02.2026
17:31:49
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicants seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.67/2025
of Police Station R.K. Puram for offence under Section 420/406/34 IPC.
2. In furtherance of last order, I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicants and learned APP assisted by IO/SI Amit Kumar and
counsel for complainants Abhishek and Saurabh Goel.
3. Broadly speaking, prosecution case as culled out of the investigation
file is as follows. The FIR was registered on joint complaint of Abhishek
and Saurabh Goel. The accused/applicants and the complainant Abhishek
had multiple business transactions, related to dairy products, as reflected in
the bank account statements shown today. It appears that since parties were
already transacting with each other, the accused/applicants took loan on few
occasions from the complainant Abhishek. Part of that loan amount was also
paid back by the accused/applicants, according to the complainants
Abhishek and Saurabh Goel. Further according to the complainants,
subsequently the accused/applicants developed dishonest intention and did
not pay back the balance loan amount. Since the loan repayment cheques got
bounced, proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were
initiated against the accused/applicants. Another part of the alleged cheating
according to the FIR is that the accused/applicants took delivery of dry fruits
from Saurabh Goel as a business transaction but the cheques of payments of
consideration issued by the accused/applicants got bounced, so proceedings
under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated.
BAIL APPLNs. 2674/2025 & 2675/2025 Page 2 of 5 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d4
35f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60
Date: 2026.02.04 17:30:21 -08'00'
4. Against the above backdrop, on last date, the IO had taken time to
produce documentary material related to the dairy business between the
parties since the FIR is silent about the same. Today, learned APP has
pointed out bank account statements which record payments made towards
milk, butter and dairy products. One wonders as to why in the FIR, there
was no mention of dairy business between the parties.
5. Learned APP for State submits that after last date, the
accused/applicants joined investigation but remained evasive and did not
produce documents related to sale of dry fruits and the rent agreement of the
place where they allegedly started business. Learned APP also submits that
the accused/applicants do not dispute having accepted the loan amount and
having not paid back the same. As regards the contention of the
accused/applicants recorded on last date, the learned APP assisted by
learned counsel for complainants and the IO admits that a sum of
Rs.2,66,00,000/- was paid by the accused/applicants to the complainants and
now only Rs.1,31,00,000/- is outstanding. However, it is explained by
learned APP that the amount of Rs.2,66,00,000/- paid by the
accused/applicants does not pertain to the transactions involved in the
present FIR.
6. To begin with, even if it was for transactions other than the loan and
dry fruit transactions involved in the present case, for consideration of
anticipatory bail on the allegations of cheating, one cannot ignore the
BAIL APPLNs. 2674/2025 & 2675/2025 Page 3 of 5 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb
4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
d2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.04 17:30:34 -08'00'
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:04.02.2026
17:31:49
amount paid (Rs.2,66,00,000/-) as against the amount allegedly outstanding
(Rs.1,31,00,000/-). This would be relevant in deciding the prima facie
existence of the offence of cheating.
7. Another aspect to be kept in mind while considering the prima facie
case for cheating is complainants' own statement that initially part of loan
amount was repaid. In other words, there is no allegation of existence of
dishonest intention at the inception of the transactions. There has to be a
difference between an ordinary business transaction which fails and an act of
cheating. Merely with the use of words "inducement" or "misrepresentation"
or "dishonest intention" in the complaint, the offence of cheating cannot be
made out; it is the overall facts and circumstances that have to be analysed
in order to ascertain prima facie commission of the offence.
8. As mentioned above, the accused/applicants admittedly joined
investigation after last date as well. The argument of learned prosecutor that
the accused/applicants were evasive in their interrogation cannot be a
ground to deny them liberty. It is the investigatorial skills of the investigator
which matter. If the interrogator is unable to elicit the requisite information
in the course of interrogation, the accused joining investigation cannot be
faulted with. No accused is under a duty not to be smart.
9. As mentioned above proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act are already pending against the accused/applicants.
BAIL APPLNs. 2674/2025 & 2675/2025 Page 4 of 5 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb
4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cb
Date: 2026.02.04 17:30:48 -08'00'
10. Considering the overall circumstances as described above, I find no
reason to deprive the accused/applicants liberty. The applications are
allowed and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the
accused/applicants shall be released on bail, subject to each of them
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. It is also
directed that the accused/applicants shall join investigation as and when
directed by the IO in writing. Of course, nothing discussed above shall have
bearing on final outcome of the trial.
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4556
9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.04 17:31:01 -08'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 04, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLNs. 2674/2025 & 2675/2025 Page 5 of 5 pages
