The grant of pre-arrest bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such extra ordinary power: Delhi High Court

BAIL APPLN. 3357/2022


The current application was filed by the applicant under Section 438 (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.365/2022 of 17.06.2022, registered at Police Station Dayalpur, New Delhi, under Section 420/467/468/471/506/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Application before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 120B Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Section 467 Forgery of valuable security, will, etc
Section 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating
Section 471 Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record
Section 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation.


The FIR was registered by a complaint made by Mohd. Wasim. It was alleged that the complainant was defrauded by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Bhuvan / Bhuwan Chand entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell the property House No. C-10/442, Gali no. 10, Brijpuri, New Delhi for a sum of ₹95 lakhs.

It was alleged that Bhuvan Chand and his associates including the applicant showed him the original documents of the above property and stated that Bhuvan Chand is the owner of the same. The complainant, on being induced by the accused persons, executed a Bayana agreement on 08.11.2021 and paid a sum of ₹40 lakhs as advance. He agreed to pay the balance sum of ₹55 lakhs on 08.12.2021 at the time of execution of the documents of the property.

Further allegations included that on 15.11.2021, a further sum of ₹5 lakhs was paid to the Bhuvan Chand who handed over the possession of one floor of the property. The complainant claims to have kept some of his belongings in the previously stated floor. On 08.12.2021, the complainant along with the balance amount reached the agreed place for the purpose of execution of the documents, Bhuvan Chand was not found and when called, he informed the complainant that a bogus transaction had been entered into.

The complainant then approached Bhuvan Chand’s house but it was locked from outside. On being called, it was alleged that the accused Bhuvan Chand also threatened the complainant. It was also found that the property was in the name of Bhuvan Chand’s mother who had never transferred it in his name.

None of the accused persons joined investigation initially. The accused, Bhuvan Chand was arrested on 31.07.2022.

The police, thereafter, filed a charge sheet. It was mentioned that the accused Bhuvan Chand along with his accomplices conspired to prepare forged papers of the property belonging to his own mother, induced the complainant and cheated him of ₹45 lakhs.

It was also mentioned that the accused / applicant has not joined the investigation, therefore the NBWs had been issued by the Court and further investigation in that regard was still pending.

The application filed by the applicant under Section 438 (Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest) of the CrPC was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 08.09.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as per the allegation, the applicant’s role was only that he was present at the time when the complainant allegedly handed over money to the main accused (Bhuwan Chand) and that the applicant had signed the alleged Bayana Agreement as witness.

Further allegations included that the applicant had retained a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs out of Rs 40 lakhs.


The Court in this case found that the accused persons were found to have committed the offence of cheating and committed the offence of forgery. The Court stated that the applicant, at this particular stage could not be considered as only an accomplice. The allegations and the investigation carried out so far indicated towards the active role of the applicant in the commission of the offence.

The Court also took notice of the fact that the applicant had not cooperated in the investigation, which led to the issuance of non-bailable warrants by the concerned Trial Court. The proceedings under Section 82 (Proclamation for person absconding) of CrPC had already been initiated.

The Court expressed that custodial interrogation was a recognized mode of investigation and believed it to be more effective.

The Court keeping in mind the nature of allegations, and the fact that the applicant had not cooperated in investigation led to initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC. Therefore the Court felt that it was not a fit case for exercise of discretion under Section 438 of CrPC. Hence, dismissed the application.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to view your judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *