Taresh Kumar Sharma vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi )

$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 29 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010517462026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4585/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33763/2026 & 33764/2026
TARESH KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Irfan Firdous with Ms. Nandini
Bindoria, Mr. Abdul Mughni, Mr.
Vansh Choudhary, Mr. Piyush
Gautam, Ms. Nazish, Ms. Kumkum,
Ms. Sukriti Bajaj, Ms. Mehvish Zia
and Mr. Nilesh Lohia, Advocates.
(M): 9667874492
Email:
[email protected]

versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State.
(M): 9868632122
Email:
[email protected]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral) :


1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking grant of
anticipatory bail, on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Taresh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. Chandra Bhan Sharma, in connection with the First Information
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 1 of 6

th
Report (“FIR”), being FIR No. 217/2026 , dated 13 June, 2026, registered at
Police Station (“PS”) Mukherjee Nagar, North West, Delhi, under Sections
420/468/471/467/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. The facts relevant, as culled from the documents on record, pertinent
for the adjudication of the present application, are as follows:
th
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered on 13 June, 2026, pursuant to
a written complaint by one Smt. Jagjit Khanna, i.e., the complainant, in
respect of an electricity connection obtained on the basis of forged documents
st
of a deceased person, in respect of the property bearing H. No 4/78, 1 Floor,
Nirankari Colony, Delhi.
2.2. During the course of investigation, it came to the fore that the co-
accused, Sh. Vineet Sharma, i.e., the son of the petitioner herein, in conspiracy
with other accused persons, obtained electricity connection bearing CA No.
60028703274, from the Tata Power Delhi Distribution Private Limited
(“TDDPL”), using forged and fabricated property documents purportedly
th
executed in the name of Late Sh. Gopal Singh Premi, who expired on 04
August, 2009.
rd
2.3. Further, on 03 September, 2026, relevant documents were received
from TPPDL, which showed that the petitioner herein has obtained another
electricity connection bearing CA No. 60028706897, at the ground floor of
the said property.
2.4. Permission to arrest the petitioner herein, if required, was obtained
th
from the Trial Court vide order dated 29 September, 2026. Subsequently,
several notices were served upon the petitioner herein on his last known
th
address, however, he has been absconding since 29 September, 2026.
2.5. Subsequently, Non Bailable Warrants (“NBWs”) were issued against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 2 of 6

th
the petitioner herein, vide order dated 06 October, 2026, by the Trial Court.
2.6. The petitioner herein had filed 03 (three) bail applications before the
Trial Court, all of which were dismissed by the Trial Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though there
is an electricity connection in favour of the petitioner with respect to the
premises occupied by him, it has nowhere come to record that signatures in
the application for the said electricity connection were done by the petitioner.
4. He further submits that the role of the petitioner from the other co-
accused is totally different.
5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently
opposes the present petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the
complainant is the owner of the property in question, as the said property has
been gifted to her by the wife of the erstwhile owner, i.e., Late Sh. Gopal
Singh Premi, by the virtue of the complainant being the adopted daughter of
the same.
7. He further submits that a dispute had arisen between the parties,
pursuant to which, the complainant had filed a case under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), in the year 2018.
8. However, despite the said dispute, the petitioner, who is in possession
of part of the property in question, has obtained electricity connection by
forging documents in the name of the erstwhile owner, i.e., Late Sh. Gopal
Singh Premi.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State also
vehemently opposes the present anticipatory bail application and submits that
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be needed since there are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 3 of 6

stark allegations against the petitioner regarding use of forged and fabricated
documents for the purposes of obtaining electricity, including a No Objection
Certificate (“NOC”) issued from the Late Sh. Gopal Singh Premi, who had
already expired in the year 2009.
10. He further submits that the Chargesheet qua co-accused Sh. Vinod
Sharma has already been filed, wherein, the main role has been attributed to
the said co-accused.
11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
12. This Court notes that the two other co-accused are already behind bars.
13. Further, this Court notes the submission made by the learned APP for
the State that the present is a case, wherein, forged and fabricated documents
have been used for the purposes of obtaining electricity connection.
14. This Court takes note of the fact that the allegations against the
petitioner are serious.
15. This Court also notes that the police had sought permission to arrest the
petitioner herein after receipt of the Report from the TDDPL, regarding
obtaining of electricity connection using forged and fabricated documents in
the name of deceased erstwhile owner, i.e., Late Sh. Gopal Singh Premi.
th
16. Vide order dated 29 September, 2026, the police was granted liberty
to arrest the petitioner herein, if required, as per applicable laws.
17. This Court notes that several notices were given to the petitioner at the
last known residential address. However, the petitioner has not joined the
investigation and his mobile phone was also switched off. Furthermore, this
th
Court also notes that NBWs were issued against the petitioner on 06 October,
2026.
18. During the course of arguments, on a pointed query by this Court,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 4 of 6

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner acceded to the fact that the
petitioner has obtained the electricity connection.
19. This Court, thus, notes that not only is the petitioner named in the FIR,
but he is also beneficiary of the electricity connection on the ground floor of
the property in question.
20. Furthermore, this Court also takes note of the fact that the originals of
the forged property documents, the forged stamp papers, General Power of
Attorney (“GPA”), NOC and other forged documents, which were used for
obtaining the electricity connection, have not yet been recovered.
21. Reference at this stage may be made to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and Others Versus State of Bihar and
Another, (2024) 12 SCC 382 , wherein, it has been stated that power to grant
anticipatory is an extraordinary power and the same has to be used with
caution as it may lead to tampering, dissolution or destruction of evidence.
The relevant portion of the said judgement reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory
bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was
held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot
be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to
exercise the said power, the court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the
accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and
may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or destruction (sic) of the evidence.
We shall not be understood to have held that the court shall not
pass an interim protection pending consideration of such
application as the section is destined to safeguard the freedom of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 5 of 6

an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such
orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when
warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not
entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not
deprive the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s)
continuously defying orders and keeps absconding is not entitled
to such grant.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact
that the allegations against the petitioner being serious in nature, this Court is
of the view that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

23. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
24. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for the
purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not be taken as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
25. The pending applications also stand disposed of.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
c




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:31.10.2026
20:36:12
Page 6 of 6