Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Five Women Accused in Property Forgery Case After State Says It Has No Objection
Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Five Women Accused in Property Forgery Case After State Says There Is Nothing to Oppose
Facts
The petitioners, Manisha Gautam, Sandesh Kumari, Gomati Devi, Sandhya and Rekha, filed separate anticipatory bail applications before the Delhi High Court.
The applications arose out of FIR No. 320 of 2023 registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, South Delhi, for offences under Sections 419, 420, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The dispute concerned an immovable property. The complainant alleged that the property was owned by his mother, Smt. Rajkumari, and that she had never sold it to anyone.
At the same time, co-accused Sonia Jain also filed a complaint claiming that Smt. Rajkumari had sold the property to her through a registered Sale Deed dated 8 April 2022.
During investigation, the police found that the registered Sale Deed dated 8 April 2022 was allegedly forged by Sonia Jain.
The allegation against the present applicants was that, through Arun Gautam, a member of their family, they received money from Sonia Jain and vacated the property.
The applicants were women belonging to the immediate family of co-accused Arun Gautam. Manisha Gautam, Sandhya and Rekha were his sisters, Gomati Devi was his mother, and Sandesh Kumari was his wife.
Issues
- Whether the five women applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in the property forgery case.
- Whether custodial interrogation was necessary when the applicants had already joined investigation.
- Whether the applicants could be denied anticipatory bail when co-accused persons, including Arun Gautam and Sonia Jain, had already been granted bail.
- Whether the State had any serious objection to grant of anticipatory bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicants argued that they were women and belonged to the immediate family of co-accused Arun Gautam.
They submitted that Manisha Gautam, Sandhya and Rekha were sisters of Arun Gautam, while Gomati Devi and Sandesh Kumari were respectively his mother and wife.
They further submitted that all remaining accused persons, including Sonia Jain, had already been released on bail.
The applicants also relied on the fact that they had been joining the investigation and there was no allegation that they had failed to cooperate.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, through the APP and the Investigating Officer, fairly submitted that there was nothing to oppose the five anticipatory bail applications.
The State also disclosed that all the present applicants had been joining the investigation.
The State did not press for custodial interrogation of the applicants.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the basic principles governing anticipatory bail, particularly the need to balance investigation requirements with personal liberty.
The Court noted that the applicants were not shown to be absconding or avoiding investigation. On the contrary, the State itself stated that they had joined the investigation.
The Court also took into account parity with other accused persons who had already been granted bail.
Since the allegation against the applicants was limited to receiving money through Arun Gautam and vacating the property, and since the principal allegation of forging the Sale Deed was against Sonia Jain, the Court found no reason to deny protection from arrest.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or rely upon any reported precedent.
The decision was based on the facts of the case, the State’s fair stand, the applicants’ cooperation with the investigation, their status as women family members of co-accused Arun Gautam, and the fact that other accused persons had already been granted bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted at the outset that the State had fairly submitted that there was nothing to oppose the anticipatory bail applications.
The Court also considered that all five applicants had been joining the investigation.
It further noted that the applicants were women from the immediate family of Arun Gautam and that other accused persons, including Sonia Jain, had already been released on bail.
Considering the overall circumstances, the Court held that there was no reason to deprive the applicants of their liberty.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed all five anticipatory bail applications.
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, each applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.
The Court further directed that the applicants must join investigation whenever directed by the Investigating Officer in writing.
Case Details
Case: Manisha Gautam & Ors. v. State of GNCT of Delhi
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 544/2026, 553/2026, 556/2026, 557/2026 & 588/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 07 July 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail granted to all five applicants.
