Shahbaz Ali@ Sabbu vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010404002026
+ BAIL APPLN. 3561/2026 & CRL.M.A. 26520/2026
SHAHBAZ ALI@ SABBU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kr. Basoya, Mr. Akshat
Bisht, Mr. Priyanshu Bidhuri and Mr.
Bijender Rathi, Advocates.
versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with Ms. Megha Garg, Advocate with
SI Sunil, PS Jamia Nagar.
Mr. Amjid Maqbool and Ms. Nikita
Kumari, Advocates for complainant.
Complainant appearing through
videoconferencing.





CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T (ORAL)


1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 482/2025 of
Police Station Jamia Nagar, District South-East, Delhi for offence under
Section 318(4) / 338 / 329(4) /333 /305 /336(3) /340(2) /339 /317(2) /61(2)
/3(5) BNS.

Bail Application No 3561/2026 Page 1 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:26:49 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified

2. In furtherance of last order, status report was filed. I have heard
learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by
IO/SI Sunil. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto .

3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The complainant
de facto purchased a flat from the builder namely, Khurram in the year 2017.
Being a resident of Kashmir, the complainant de facto handed over keys of
his flat to the caretaker namely, Aslam so that as and when the complainant
de facto would come to Delhi, he could stay in that flat. On 05.11.2025, the
complainant de facto was informed by Aslam that the latter had allowed his
acquaintance namely, Shahbaz Khan ( the present accused/applicant ) to stay
with his family for a few days but was not vacating the same. The
complainant de facto came to Delhi and met the accused/applicant and his
family. The accused/applicant stated that he had purchased that flat from
Nadeem by way of General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Arshi,
wife of the accused/applicant. On the basis of complaint lodged by the
complainant de facto an FIR was registered and chain of title documents was
recovered by the IO from both set of claimants, i.e., the complainant de facto
and the accused/applicant. According to prosecution side, the documents
produced by the accused/applicant were found to be forged.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the investigation
is complete and chargesheet has already been filed, so no purpose would be
served by keeping the accused/applicant in jail. It is also submitted by

Bail Application No 3561/2026 Page 2 of 5 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: 2026.10.29 18:26:40 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50

learned counsel that pertaining to title of the subject flat, a civil suit is
already pending between the parties. It is also submitted that the co-accused
persons have already been granted bail. Therefore, according to learned
counsel, the accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail.

5. Learned APP for State opposes the bail application on the ground of
gravity of offence of forgery of the title documents. It is submitted by
learned APP that in the allegedly forged documents, one of the witnesses
denied having signed the same and even the notary concerned denied having
notarized those documents.

6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also opposes the bail
application on the ground that the subject flat had market value of
approximately Rs. 45,00,000/-, but the transaction documents propounded
by the accused/applicant show that the same was sold by the complainant de
facto for Rs. 18,50,000/- on 19.06.2025 to Shagufta, from whom the same
was sold to Nadeem on 23.06.2025 for Rs. 19,00,000/- and from Nadeem it
was sold to Arshi wife of the accused/applicant for Rs. 19,50,000/- on
01.07.2025. This according to him shows the forgery.

7. For convenience, the chain of transactions as explained by the IO is
narrated as follows. The complainant de facto purchased the subject flat
from Khurram and according to prosecution, the complainant de facto never
sold the subject flat to anyone further. But according to the

Bail Application No 3561/2026 Page 3 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:26:30 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified

accused/applicant, the subject flat was sold by complainant de facto to
Shagufta, who sold the same to Nadeem and finally Nadeem sold the same
to Arshi, who is wife of the accused/applicant. All these sale transactions
were only through unregistered, but notarized General Power of Attorneys.
According to prosecution, the General Power of Attorney purportedly
executed by complainant de facto to Shagufta is forged one, though the
subsequent General Power of Attorneys from Shagufta to Nadeem and from
Nadeem to Arshi are genuine.

8. Against the above backdrop, a specific query is put to learned APP as
to what evidence has been collected by the IO in order to connect the present
accused/applicant with the alleged forgery of the General Power of Attorney
purportedly executed by the complainant de facto in favour of Shagufta. It is
submitted by learned APP that the only evidence in this regard are the
disclosure statements of Shagufta, Nadeem and Arshi, incriminating the
accused/applicant; and the telephonic connectivity between the present
accused/applicant and Shagufta, Nadeem and Arshi by way of their Call
Detail Record (CDR). There is no other evidence to connect the
accused/applicant with the alleged offence, according to learned APP.

9. As repeatedly held by this Court, mere telephonic connectivity on the
basis of CDRs cannot be treated as incriminating evidence, unless there is
evidence of interception of phone calls to ascertain as to what was being
spoken between the two concerned persons. The other piece of evidence

Bail Application No 3561/2026 Page 4 of 5 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:26:20 +05'30'
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified

against the accused/applicant being the confessional statements of the co-
accused persons when they were in custody cannot be read against the
present accused/applicant. There is no other evidence against the
accused/applicant to connect him with the alleged offence. Further,
admittedly parties are already before the civil court of competent jurisdiction
through a civil suit. The co-accused Arshi and Shagufta have already been
granted bail by the Court of Sessions.

10. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
deprive further liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail
application is allowed and accused/applicant is directed to 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 Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.

11. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.

12. Pending application also stands disposed of.


Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4a
fec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626ca
cca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5
d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c48796
5ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.10.29 18:26:01 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 29, 2026/ dr

Bail Application No 3561/2026 Page 5 of 5 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:29.10.2026
18:24:50