DHEERAJ RAGHAV v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 4457/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages $~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15.10.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010503862026 + BAIL APPLN. 4457/2026 & CRL.M.A. 32872/2026 DHEERAJ RAGHAV .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Hemant Gupta, Mr. Akash Aggarwal, Mr. Rony John and Ms.

Shipra Mishra, Advocates

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Madan Lal Mr. Pinaki Addy, Advocate for complainant de facto ( through videoconferencing)

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.

312/2026 of PS IGI Airport for offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that while working as a second-hand car dealer, he sold one Mahindra Thar for a

BAIL APPLN. 4457/2026 Page 2 of 3 pages sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the complainant de facto in the year 2024, but later the complainant de facto came to know that the said car was already under hypothecation with a bank, so he lodged the FIR. The complainant de facto is an official of GST Department, but he alleges having paid Rs.13,00,000/- in cash.

3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the complainant de facto was clearly apprised of the hypothecation by the accused/applicant by way of sending WhatsApp pictures of the RC but the IO has not investigated the screenshot of the concerned WhatsApp message. A printout of the said WhatsApp message is handed over to the IO along with a printout of the relevant page of the relevant website of transport department.

4. Further, it is alleged by learned counsel for accused/applicant that even the cash receipts relied upon by the IO are not the original one, regarding which, the accused/applicant has already lodged a complaint of forgery.

5. Learned counsel for complainant de facto appearing through videoconferencing submits that he also has to give certain documents to the IO, which need to be investigated in detail. Learned APP for State submits that those documents also shall be analyzed.

6. In the above backdrop, learned APP for State, on instructions of IO/SI Madan Lal, submits that presently, the evidence available is not sufficient to arrest the accused/applicant and investigation is at nascent stage, so as and

BAIL APPLN. 4457/2026 Page 3 of 3 pages when evidence sufficient to arrest is collected by the IO, he shall give one week pre-arrest notice to the accused/applicant so that he may approach the court again for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail and the accompanying application are disposed of on assurance of the State that as and when evidence sufficient to arrest the accused/applicant is collected by the IO, a pre-arrest notice of at least one week shall be issued by the IO in writing to the accused/applicant, so that the accused/applicant may seek appropriate remedy from this Court.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

OCTOBER 15, 2026/as