[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Harvinder Singh Sodhi vs State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Amar ... on 18 March, 2026
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3578/2024
HARVINDER SINGH SODHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Lalit, Ms. Mehak
Kalra, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Mr.
Lakshay Sahrawat, and Mr. Divyansh
Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO AMAR COLONY POLICE
STATION SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT NEW DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Sachin Kumar.
Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advocate for
complainant de facto.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
206/2024 of PS Amar Colony for offence under Section 406/420/506 IPC.
1.1 This anticipatory bail application came up for the first hearing on
04.10.2024 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting
BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 1 of 5 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
Digitally Signed 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.18 14:27:01 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:18.03.2026
14:34:51
adjourned before different benches. Vide order dated 04.10.2024, the
predecessor bench granted interim protection to the accused/applicant from
arrest, which protection continued on date to date basis till date. Along with
179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred
to this bench.
1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned senior
counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State as well as learned
counsel for complainant de facto.
2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The
accused/applicant is father-in-law of niece of the complainant de facto. The
accused/applicant allegedly induced the complainant de facto to pay money
under the pretext that the former would purchase land in the joint name of
both of them, but later on, the accused/applicant purchased the land in his
individual name and sold it further to make profits.
3. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that no offence
is made out even if prosecution case is believed as it is. It is contended that
the transaction between the parties was a simple loan transaction, but colour
of criminality has been given only to armtwist the accused/applicant. It is
also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the catena of judicial
pronouncements has given a note of caution that criminal proceedings
should not be allowed to be exploited for settling the civil disputes.
BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 2 of 5 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
Digitally Signed 15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
By:DIKSHA RAWAT Date: 2026.03.18 14:26:51 -07'00'
Signing Date:18.03.2026
14:34:51
4. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Sachin Kumar strongly
opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the facts
mentioned above clearly make out an offence of cheating for the reason that
the accused/applicant took money from the complainant de facto by
misleading him that the property to be purchased shall be in joint name of
the parties. It is also contended that it is not believable that loan with interest
at the rate of 4% per annum would be granted by anyone.
5. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also strongly opposes the
anticipatory bail application, reiterating the submissions advanced by
learned APP for State. Additionally, it is contended that the
accused/applicant even showed to the complainant de facto a demand draft
in the name of the proposed seller but thereafter, cancelled the same and
took the money in his own bank account. It is also submitted that instead of
purchasing the land in joint names, the accused/applicant executed an
agreement of cultivation of the land with the farmer and thereafter, sold
away the same to another person at a higher rate, thereby earning profit
without giving share to the complainant de facto. It is also contended that
the accused/applicant concealed his third bank account in which he had
received cash amount from the buyer of the land.
6. In nutshell, the case set up by prosecution side is that the
accused/applicant committed offence of cheating by taking money from the
complainant de facto on the pretext of buying land in joint name, but bought
the land in his individual name and sold away the same to earn profit; and on
BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 3 of 5 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
Digitally Signed f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.18 14:26:39 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:18.03.2026
14:34:51
the other hand, the accused/applicant claims that it was at the most a loan
transaction and not an offence of cheating.
7. In order to make a prima facie view if any cheating is made out,
specific query was put to prosecution side and the answer is that there is no
document at all to show that the money was received by the
accused/applicant for purchasing land in joint name with the complainant de
facto. Admittedly, no cash amount was transferred from complainant de
facto to the accused/applicant, so there is no receipt also to show the purpose
of money paid to the accused/applicant. One also wonders as to why the
complainant de facto would not pay the money directly to the seller, instead
of transferring the money to the accused/applicant.
8. Another important aspect is that at request of both sides, the
predecessor bench referred the matter to mediation, which failed. It has been
repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the bail courts are not money
recovery forum. But for present purposes, it shows that the complainant de
facto is interested in getting back the money and not in prosecution of the
accused/applicant, otherwise he would not have agreed for such mediation
effort.
9. Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to deprive the
accused/applicant liberty.
10. Therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the
BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 4 of 5 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
Digitally Signed 01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.18 14:26:28 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:18.03.2026
14:34:51
event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
Accused/applicant shall join investigation as and when directed in writing
by the IO.
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
KATHPALIA
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.18 14:26:17 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 18, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLICATION 3578/2024 Page 5 of 5 pages
