$~52
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
%					                    Date of Decision: 07.09.2026

#	CNR No. DLHC010416872026
+ 	BAIL APPLN. 3691/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27367/2026
	RAJKEEN SAIFI						     .....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Deepak Rana, Advocates.

				versus

	STATE N.C.T. DELHI					   .....Respondent
				Through:	Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State.







     CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

                                                                        
J U D G M E N T    (ORAL)

1.	The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 152/2026 of PS Farsh Bazar for offence under Section 420/448/506/34 IPC.

2.	Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. On 03.03.2016, the accused/applicant sold away 50 yards out of 75 yards of her immovable property to Smt. Taranjeet Kaur by way of registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, on 06.03.2017, the accused/applicant sold away the entire 75 sq. yards to the complainant de facto by way of an Agreement to Sell. Even thereafter, on 24.10.2017, the accused/applicant sold the remaining 25 sq. yards of the same property to Smt. Shagufta. In other words, the accused/applicant, despite having sold away 2/3rd of her property by a registered Sale Deed, executed Agreement to Sell qua the entire property and took Rs.10,00,000/- from complainant de facto. 

3.	Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that it is only a civil dispute of money lending. It is submitted that husband of the accused/applicant had borrowed Rs.10,00,000/-  in cash from complainant de facto and that amount is being repaid by depositing instalments in bank accounts of daughter and driver of the complainant de facto. 

4.	The fact remains that the accused/applicant took money from complainant de facto under Agreement to Sell pertaining to a property which she had already sold away. Even in the subsequently registered Sale Deed executed by the accused/applicant in favour of Shagufta, the accused/applicant did not disclose anything about the said Agreement to Sell.

5.	It is not a case of only money lending. Besides, it cannot be said that where a transaction reflects civil liability, criminality stands automatically excluded. Same transaction can involve both – civil as well as penal liability. Of course, the trial court shall take independent view of the matter on the basis of evidence. 

6.	Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application and accompanying bail application are dismissed.

7.	At this stage, learned counsel for accused/applicant requests to take his submission on record that the complainant de facto had taken four blank cheques of the accused/applicant and her husband along with blank signed stamp papers.


GIRISH KATHPALIA
     (JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2026/ry



BAIL APPLN. 3691/2026			   		             Page 1 of 3 pages