Raju Dhankar vs State

$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010125602021
+ CRL.M.C. 851/2021, CRL.M.A. 4229/2021 & CRL.M.A. 5011/2021
RAJU DHANKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.P. Singh, Ms. Sakshi
Mendiratta and Ms. Ginni Garg,
Advocates.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State.
SI Rohitash Yadav, PS: Neb Sarai.
Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) for setting aside/modifying the
th
condition of deposit of amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- in order dated 10
November, 2022 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘impugned order’) towards grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts which are necessary for deciding the petition are set out
hereinafter:
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

2.1. The petitioner and the complainant/respondent no.2 entered into an
agreement to sell, in respect of which the petitioner was to sell property
bearing No.125-C, located on Khasra No.322, situated in abadi of Lal Dora,
Village Neb Sarai, New Delhi-110068 to the complainant.
2.2. The complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate, which resulted in the present FIR No.0385/2020 dated
th
26 August, 2020, under Sections 420/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (‘IPC’) being registered against the petitioner at Police Station Neb
Sarai, Delhi.
th
2.3. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. on 9
September 2020.
2.4. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail
before the Sessions Court, which came to be granted vide impugned order
th
dated 10 November 2020, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of
Rs.1,15,00,000/- in instalments before the Court
2.5. Since the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid amount, the
respondent no.2/complainant filed an application for cancellation of bail.
3. The petitioner filed the present petition before this Court for setting
aside modifying the condition of deposit of amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- in
order dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge towards
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
rd
4. Complainant was directed to be impleaded as a respondent on 23
March, 2021.
rd
5. Vide order dated 23 march 2021 passed by this Court, subject to
deposit of the sum of Rs.30 lakhs by the petitioner, the proceedings in the
application for cancellation of bail was stayed.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

6. Vide order dated 6th April, 2021, it was noted that the petitioner had
deposited only ₹15 lakhs, and one week’s further time was granted.
7. Subsequently, vide order dated 13th July, 2021, it was recorded that
the petitioner had deposited ₹30 lakhs.
8. Mr. Puneet Mittal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature,
and the complainant has also filed a civil suit against the petitioner, which is
pending.
9. Mr. Mittal further submits that the order imposing the condition of a
monetary deposit for grant of anticipatory bail is unlawful, and the Court
cannot impose monetary conditions as a condition for grant of anticipatory
bail. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
1
in Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ramesh Kumar v. State of
2
NCT of Delhi .
10. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP, as well as the counsel for the respondent
no.2/complainant, vehemently oppose the present petition.
11. Counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submits that a total sum
of Rs. 1,15,00,000 was sent to the petitioner in 2018 via bank transfers and
cheques for the purchase of the subject property.
12. It is submitted that the petitioner was seeking anticipatory bail, and
fearing that the same would be dismissed, therefore, voluntarily made this
offer to deposit the sum of Rs.1,15,00,000 in Court. The said offer was duly
accepted by the Court and the petitioner was directed to deposit the said
amount in instalments. It has been six years since the said order was passed,
1
(2009) 13 SCC 769
2
( 2023) 7 SCC 461
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

and the petitioner has only deposited till date a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-. APP
and counsel for respondent no.2/complainant contest the fact that the dispute
is purely of a civil nature. They submit that the case involves serious
criminal offences including forgery.
13. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. Firstly, a reference may be made to the impugned order. The relevant
extracts from the said order are set out below:
15. A perusal of the impugned order suggests that the petitioner, fearing
the fact that anticipatory bail may not be granted to him, offered to deposit a
sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in Court in instalments. The Sessions Court
accepted the said statement of the petitioner and granted him anticipatory
bail upon his depositing a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in the name of the Court
in instalments. Having obtained protection on the basis of the said order, the
petitioner is now seeking to resile from the voluntary offer.
16. To be noted, the State had filed its reply to the anticipatory bail
application in Sessions Court vehemently opposing the bail and stating that
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

the petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation, hence his custodial
interrogation is required.
17. As regards the contention that the dispute is purely of civil nature, the
status report/reply to the anticipatory bail filed before the Sessions Court,
wherein it was stated that the petitioner had wrongly represented the subject
property to be owned by him, whereas it was a Gram Sabha land. It is also
stated that the petitioner had filed a forged certificate issued by SDM, to
show ownership and title of the land. Relevant extracts from the status
report/ reply to the anticipatory bail are set out below:
18. Pursuant to the investigation, serious charges of forgery have been
added against the petitioner. In light of the above, it cannot be said that the
dispute between the parties is of a purely civil nature.
19. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon Amarjit Singh (supra),
wherein the Supreme Court set aside the condition requiring the accused to
deposit a sum of ₹15 lakhs as a prerequisite for anticipatory bail. However,
in the said case, the Court specifically noted that the accused had not agreed
to deposit the said amount. In the present case, on the other hand, the
petitioner had himself offered to deposit a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

instalments. In the said case, offences involved were only Section 420 and
406 IPC and not offences involving forgery under Section 467 and 468 of
IPC as in the present case.
20. Mr. Puneet Mittal has placed reliance on paragraph 30 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar (supra) which is set out
below:
“30. We are not unmindful of the fact that the High Court was led by the
appellant himself to an order granting bail with imposition of the
impugned condition; hence, we are inclined to remit the matter to the
High Court in line with the approach adopted by this Court in Mahesh
Chandra® and direct reconsideration of the application for pre-arrest
bail and a decision on its own merits in the light of the observations made
herein, as early as possible but preferably within 31-8-2023. It is ordered
accordingly.”
21. In Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a
dispute predominantly civil in nature, and it was held that the High Court
had erred in imposing a deposit condition of ₹22 lakhs and remitting the
matter for reconsideration, observing that criminal law could not be pressed
into service to settle a civil dispute. The offences were related to simpliciter
cheating. In the present case, however, the allegations also concern the
alleged misrepresentation of property ownership and the use of forged
documents involving serious charges of forgery under Sections 467 and 468
of IPC.
22. Clearly the aforesaid judgements are distinguishable and do not
advance the case of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18

23. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order which requires interference by this Court.
24. The petition is dismissed accordingly. The Trial Court shall proceed
to adjudicate the application for cancellation for bail filed by the respondent
no.2.
25. The amount of Rs.30,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner before this
Court shall be subject to further orders passed by the trial court.
26. Pending applications stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026
Rzu
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 851/2021 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:50:18