Delhi HC Grants Bail In Disputed Flat-Title Case, Says CDRs And Co-Accused Statements Alone Don’t Link Man To Alleged Forgeryેણ

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the completed investigation, the evidence collected against him, and the circumstances of the case.

The court held

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

It also directed

It directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the Jail Superintendent and disposed of the pending application.

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 482/2025, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 329(4), 333, 305, 336(3), 340(2), 339, 317(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The dispute concerned a flat claimed by the complainant, who alleged that the applicant was occupying it on the basis of a forged chain of notarized, unregistered General Power of Attorney documents.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3, 7

The investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.

The applicant relied on the pending civil suit concerning title and the grant of bail to co-accused persons.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4

The State opposed bail, citing the alleged forgery and evidence said to connect the applicant to it.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in light of the completed investigation, the evidence collected against him, and the circumstances of the case.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 4–10

ii.2. Whether the alleged co-accused disclosure statements and telephone connectivity shown by Call Detail Records provided sufficient material to connect the applicant with the alleged forgery.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9

03Law Applied

The applicant faced charges under the specified provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The Court applied the principles that mere telephone connectivity shown by Call Detail Records, without evidence of intercepted calls establishing their content, is not by itself incriminating; and that custodial confessional statements of co-accused persons cannot be read against the applicant.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent for these principles.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 11 provisions

Section 318 Section 338 Section 329 Section 333 Section 305 Section 336 Section 340 Section 339 Section 317 Section 61 Section 3

04Reasoning

The State identified only the disclosure statements of Shagufta, Nadeem and Arshi, and the applicant’s telephone connectivity with them, as evidence linking him to the allegedly forged document; it acknowledged there was no other connecting evidence.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The Court held that the CDR evidence did not establish what was said in the calls and that the co-accused statements could not be used against the applicant.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

It also considered that the title dispute was before a civil court and that co-accused Arshi and Shagufta had been granted bail.

p. 5 · ¶ 9

In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to deny the applicant further liberty.

p. 5 · ¶ 10