Shweta Sharma vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010121812026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1220/2026
YAGYA DUTT SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Monika Arora and Mr.
Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Anamika
Thakur, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Rahul Lamba
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for
complainant de facto with
complainant de facto in person
# CNR No. DLHC010122262026
+ BAIL APPLN. 1221/2026
SHWETA SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Monika Arora and Mr.
Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Anamika
Thakur, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Rahul Lamba
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 1 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4
afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c
acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:19:10 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48
Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate for
complainant de facto with
complainant de facto in person
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The accused/applicants seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
109/2025 of PS Saket, South Delhi for offence under Section
420/468/471/34 IPC. The factual and legal matrix being same, those
applications are taken up and heard together.
2. On last date, these anticipatory bail applications had to be adjourned
because counsel for complainant de facto could not reach and status report
also was awaited. Today, I have heard learned counsel for
accused/applicants and learned APP for State, assisted by IO/SI Rahul. I
have also heard at length, learned counsel for complainant de facto .
3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The FIR was
registered on the complaint of Ms. Madhu Bala Soni, alleging that she took a
loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from both the present accused/applicants after
mortgaging her flat; that the transaction was mortgage and not sale of the
subject flat, though admittedly the transaction was by way of registered sale
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 2 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:19:00 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48
deed; that the parties also executed MoU dated 04.07.2017, contemplating
that the loan would be repaid within five years, after which, the present
accused/applicants would return the subject flat to her; that she had repaid
Rs. 13,77,000/- to the present accused/applicants, but they violated the MoU
and sold away the subject flat to two other persons. Subsequently, in the
year 2022, the complainant de facto also filed a civil suit for specific
performance of contract. In the said suit, the present accused/applicants filed
written statement, relying upon two MoUs, dated 04.07.2017 and
16.09.2020. According to the accused/applicants in their written statement,
there were two MoUs dated 04.07.2017 and one MoU dated 16.09.2020 and
they filed photocopies of those MoUs before the civil court, pleading
specifically that the original MoUs are in possession of the complainant de
facto . According to prosecution, this amounts to the offence of cheating.
4. Against the above backdrop, it is argued on behalf of the
accused/applicants that what is a plain and simple case of civil liability, has
been given colour of criminality and no offence of cheating is made out. It is
submitted that the issue of civil liability and validity of sale executed by the
accused/applicants in favour of those two strangers is already pending
before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, so there is no need to
deprive the accused/applicants of their liberty.
5. Learned APP for State opposes these anticipatory bail applications on
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 3 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:18:49 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48
the ground that it is a clear case of cheating because despite having executed
MoU dated 04.07.2017, the accused/applicants instead of returning the
subject flat to the complainant de facto , sold away the same to strangers.
6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto supplements the
submissions of State and contends that this is not a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail because the original MoUs dated 04.07.2017 and
16.09.2020 have not been handed over by the accused/applicants to the IO
for forensic analysis, so it is a case requiring custodial interrogation. It is
also submitted by learned counsel for complainant de facto that the
accused/applicants falsely stated before the IO that originals of those MoUs
are in possession of the complainant de facto .
7. No other argument has been advanced by either side.
8. So far as the issue of requirement for custodial interrogation is
concerned, liberty cannot be denied merely for asking by the IO. The IO
must justify the requirement to carry out custodial interrogation. In the
present case, as mentioned above, stand of the accused/applicants is that
those two original MoUs are with the complainant de facto , whereas stand of
the complainant de facto is that those original documents are with the
accused/applicants. The stand of the complainant de facto in this regard fails
to convince for two reasons. Firstly, the first MoU dated 04.07.2017 in
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 4 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26
fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:18:39 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48
original was admittedly with the complainant de facto , so it does not appear
plausible that the second MoU dated 04.07.2017 and the third MoU dated
16.09.2020 in originals would not be retained by the complainant de facto .
In the civil suit, the photocopies of those two MoUs were filed by the
accused/applicants pleading specifically that originals are with the
complainant de facto . Secondly, if the complainant de facto wanted to
reclaim the subject flat, as per natural human conduct, original MoUs would
be retained by her only. Where the complainant de facto retains the original
documents, requirement expressed by the IO to carry out custodial
interrogation does not appear to be a sound requirement to the extent of
depriving the accused persons’ liberty.
9. Admittedly, the transfer of the subject flat from the complainant de
facto to the accused/applicants was by way of registered sale deed. There is
no mortgage deed. The complainant de facto wants to nullify a registered
instrument (Sale Deed) with an unregistered document (MoU). I am of the
prima facie view that the dispute between the complainant de facto and the
accused/applicants is only a civil dispute, for which denial of liberty to the
accused/applicants would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. As
mentioned above, the civil suit has already been filed and law shall take its
course. However, I must also add a cautious rider that the above
observations have been recorded for limited purposes of dealing with the
rival arguments on grant of the anticipatory bail. The learned trial court, at
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 5 of 6 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:18:29 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48
the final stage, shall take independent view on the basis of evidence adduced
by both sides.
10. Therefore, both these applications are allowed and it is directed that in
the event of their arrest, the accused/applicants shall be released on bail,
subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO
concerned.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.03 17:18:12 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/as
BAIL APPLNs.1220/2026 & 1221/2026 Page 6 of 6 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DIKSHA RAWAT
Signing Date:03.09.2026
17:21:48