Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a regular bail application in a case involving allegations of forgery, cheating, impersonation, and criminal conspiracy relating to a high-value residential property in Greater Kailash-I. The Court held that where the applicant’s role is not graver than that of co-accused already on bail, the chargesheet has been filed, and prolonged custody serves no purpose, continued incarceration is unwarranted. Granting bail on grounds of parity and completion of investigation, the Court emphasised that imprisonment before conviction is neither punitive nor preventive and must be strictly justified .
Facts
The FIR was registered in December 2023 on allegations of a forged sale deed executed in April 2022 to illegally acquire ownership and possession of a property in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The complainant and his siblings claimed joint ownership of the property, inherited from their mother, who had passed away in 2001.
It was alleged that the sale deed was executed in favour of one accused by producing an impersonator posing as the deceased owner, thereby fabricating title documents. Multiple accused were named, including alleged beneficiaries, facilitators, and persons who arranged the impersonator.
The present applicant was alleged to have shared details of the deceased owner with co-accused, who allegedly arranged the impersonation. The applicant asserted that he was merely residing at the property as a caretaker and had vacated the premises after receiving compensation. He was arrested in March 2024 and remained in custody while investigation progressed .
Issues
The key issue before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a case involving serious offences of forgery and conspiracy, considering the nature of his alleged role, the status of co-accused, the stage of investigation, and the period of custody already undergone. The Court also examined whether continued detention was necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Petitioner’s arguments
The applicant argued that his role was limited and peripheral, confined to sharing certain information, and that he was neither the beneficiary of the forged sale deed nor involved in execution of the impersonation. It was emphasised that all principal accused, including those who allegedly forged the sale deed and attempted to usurp ownership, had already been granted bail by either the trial court or the High Court.
The applicant further submitted that he had been in custody since March 2024, that the chargesheet had already been filed, and that no further custodial interrogation was required. On these grounds, bail was sought primarily on parity and prolonged incarceration.
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, relying on the gravity of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences, which involved impersonation of a deceased person and fabrication of title documents to grab immovable property. However, it was not disputed that the investigation stood completed, the chargesheet had been filed, and several co-accused with more significant roles had already been enlarged on bail.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled principles governing grant of bail, particularly that pre-trial detention is not a measure of punishment and must be justified by compelling reasons such as risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Once investigation is complete and evidence is largely documentary in nature, the necessity of continued custody diminishes.
The Court also reaffirmed the doctrine of parity, holding that similarly placed accused cannot be treated differently without strong distinguishing factors. Where co-accused with graver allegations are already on bail, denial of bail to a less culpable accused would offend principles of fairness and equality before law.
Precedent analysis
Although the order did not cite specific judgments, the reasoning is consistent with established Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasising that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that parity among accused persons is a significant consideration in bail matters. The Court also echoed the constitutional principle that deprivation of personal liberty must be proportionate and justified.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court noted that the role attributed to the applicant was not graver than that of other accused already on bail, including those who allegedly forged the sale deed and orchestrated the impersonation. The Court found no distinguishing circumstance warranting continued detention of the applicant alone.
It further observed that the applicant had been in custody for several months, that the investigation qua him was complete, and that the object of detention—to secure presence at trial—could be achieved through appropriate bail conditions. The Court underscored that incarceration before conviction should not be prolonged in the absence of compelling reasons such as likelihood of tampering with evidence or evading trial.
Conclusion
Allowing the bail application, the Delhi High Court directed release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to strict conditions including non-tampering with evidence, restriction on foreign travel, regular appearance before the trial court, disclosure of residential address, and availability on mobile phone. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not influence the trial on merits .
Implications
This ruling reinforces the principle that parity and completion of investigation are decisive factors in bail jurisprudence, even in cases involving serious economic and property-related offences. It reiterates judicial reluctance to permit prolonged pre-trial incarceration where evidence is documentary and co-accused are already on bail. The judgment serves as guidance for courts to balance seriousness of allegations with constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
Case law references
- Principle of parity in bail jurisprudence
Courts must ensure similarly placed accused are treated alike unless distinguishing factors justify differential treatment. - Bail as rule, jail as exception
Reiterates constitutional emphasis on personal liberty and limited use of pre-trial detention.
FAQs
1. Can bail be granted in cases involving forged sale deeds and impersonation?
Yes. Courts may grant bail if the accused’s role is limited, investigation is complete, and custody is no longer necessary.
2. What does the principle of parity mean in bail matters?
If co-accused with similar or graver roles have been granted bail, denial of bail to another accused may be unjustified.
3. Does filing of chargesheet affect bail decisions?
Yes. Once the chargesheet is filed and investigation is complete, the need for custodial detention significantly reduces.