[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Manish Yadav vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 March, 2026
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 436/2025 & CRL.M.A. 3105/2025
MANISH YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parth Chaturvedi, Advocate
(through videoconferencing).
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Rahul Ranjan.
Mr. Nishant Kumar Tyagi,
Advocate for R-2/complainant de
facto (through videoconferencing).
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
659/2024 of PS Harsh Vihar for offence under Section 406/420 IPC.
1.1 This anticipatory bail application came up for the first hearing on
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 1 of 6 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
Digitally Signed Date: 2026.03.19 18:02:11 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
31.01.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting
adjourned before different benches. On the very first date, the predecessor
bench referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre as
desired by both sides and granted interim protection to the accused/applicant
from arrest. That interim protection continues 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 counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Rahul Ranjan.
I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto.
2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case borne out of FIR and
investigation record is as follows. In the month of February 2021, the
complainant de facto allegedly entered into a deal with the accused/applicant
for purchase of shop of the latter for total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-.
On 11.02.2021 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and on 19.02.2021 a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred by the complainant de facto in the bank
account of the accused/applicant. On 19.02.2021 itself, the
accused/applicant also collected cash Rs.5,00,000/- from residence of
complainant de facto, assuring to get the agreement prepared. But the
accused/applicant did not prepare the agreement and kept avoiding the issue.
Finally on 01.09.2021, the accused/applicant executed an agreement on a
stamp paper, assuring to return the entire amount within six months or to
transfer the shop in the name of the complainant de facto. But the
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 2 of 6 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
Digitally Signed 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26f
a, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:02:00 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
accused/applicant neither transferred the shop nor returned the money.
3. Against the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant
submits that what is plainly a loan transaction, has been given colour of
criminality only to armtwist the accused/applicant. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for accused/applicant that the complainant de facto has
always been interested only in return of money, and not prosecution of the
accused/applicant, which is the reason he agreed for mediation settlement
and on 06.03.2025 a settlement agreement was executed between the two of
them before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. It is further submitted
by learned counsel for accused/applicant that he has paid back more than
50% of the amount settled before the mediation centre, but for past two
months he is unable to pay up on account of business losses.
4. Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on the ground that
the very fact that the accused/applicant took money on the pretext of transfer
of his shop but thereafter backed out, clearly shows that he intended to cheat
the complainant de facto. Further, learned APP has also shown me the
agreement dated 01.09.2021 executed by the parties on a stamp paper and it
is contended that despite the said agreement, the accused/applicant did not
transfer the shop. Learned APP for State also contends and rightly so that
mediation settlement does not absolve the accused/applicant of criminal
liability, if the same is made out.
5. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also opposes the bail
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 3 of 6 pages
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
Digitally Signed 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:01:50 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
application on the ground that despite having entered into a mediation
settlement, the accused/applicant has not returned the money. Further, it is
contended by learned counsel for complainant de facto that the shop in
question is owned by mother of the accused/applicant, who has sold away
the same. However, on this aspect of ownership or sale of shop, the IO
expresses ignorance as there is nothing on record in that regard.
6. I am in complete agreement with learned APP that the mediation
settlement would not absolve the accused/applicant of his criminal liability,
if the same is made out. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court as
well as by all High Courts across the country that bail courts are not the
forum for recovery of money. The courts across the country have also
repeatedly held that criminal justice machinery should not be allowed to be
misused in order to armtwist a party liable to pay money. But at the same
time, since the accused/applicant and the complainant de facto were referred
by the predecessor bench to the process of mediation, for present purposes
of deliberating upon liberty of the accused/applicant, it cannot be ignored
that the complainant de facto himself also requested before the predecessor
bench for referral of the dispute to mediation and even participated in the
process. There was not even a whisper of objection from prosecution side to
the referral of the dispute to mediation process. As mentioned above, more
than 50% of the settled amount has been paid back by the accused/applicant
to the complainant de facto.
7. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no explanation as to why at the time
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 4 of 6 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
Digitally Signed , cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:01:41 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
of the first online payment of Rs.4,00,000/-, the complainant de facto did not
ask the accused/applicant to execute an agreement to sell or even any
bayana receipt. Even at the time of second instalment of Rs.1,00,000/-
online, no agreement to sell or even any kachcha receipt mentioning the
agreement to sell was executed between the parties. Rather, the subsequent
agreement dated 01.09.2021 executed and signed by both parties on stamp
paper clearly shows that the subject shop was lying mortgaged with
someone for Rs.10,00,000/- and the complainant de facto paid
Rs.10,00,000/- on the condition that after release of the mortgaged property,
the accused/applicant would transfer the same in the name of the
complainant de facto, but the former was seeking further time of six months
to either pay back the amount or transfer the shop in the name of the latter.
8. Considering the overall circumstances as described above, and also no
need expressed by the IO for custodial interrogation of the
accused/applicant, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.
9. 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
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. Accompanying
application stands disposed of.
10. Needless to say, on the above discussed factual matrix, the learned
trial court shall take independent view based on the evidence adduced during
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 5 of 6 pages
GIRISH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
KATHPALIA
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15
570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e
Digitally Signed 26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.03.19 18:01:31 -07'00'
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:19.03.2026
18:09:46
trial. The 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: 2026.03.19 18:01:20 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 19, 2026/ry
BAIL APPLICATION 436/2025 Page 6 of 6 pages
