Delhi HC Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea in Rs. 12 Crore Property Fraud, Observes “The Maestro Leads from a Distance” [Read Order]

New Delhi: The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Ram Singh, who is alleged to be the key facilitator in a property fraud case involving cheated funds of approximately Rs. 12.04 crores, with the overall magnitude of fraud allegedly exceeding Rs. 186 crores. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while dismissing the petition, observed that the petitioner appeared to be the key conspirator and principal facilitator who had knowingly enabled the routing, rotation, laundering, and concealment of cheated money through multiple layered bank accounts, shell entities, and trusted associates. Closing with a pointed observation, the Court remarked: “The maestro leads from a distance, commanding the orchestra, with no instrument in his own hand.”

The order was passed on March 24, 2026, in Bail Application No. 817 of 2026 filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 322 of 2025 dated October 30, 2025, registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Subsequent to the filing of a chargesheet dated February 17, 2026, against co-accused persons upon completion of investigation against them, offences under Sections 316(2), 341, 342, and 218 of the BNS were also added. The petitioner himself has not yet been chargesheeted, as the investigation against him is still underway.

The background of the case, as set out in the order, is as follows. Based on a complaint dated June 13, 2025, filed by complainant Ms. Babita Mittal, the FIR was registered alleging offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds amounting to approximately Rs. 12.04 crores. The prosecution’s case is that, sometime in August 2024, co-accused Mohit Gogia and his wife Shweta Gogia, representing M/s MG Leasing and Finance, approached the complainant’s husband through an intermediary, claiming to facilitate the purchase of properties auctioned by banks under the SARFAESI Act.

The accused represented that they had purchased a property at No. 220, 20th Floor, Tower 2, DLF Camellias, DLF Golf Course, Sector 42, Gurgaon, for approximately Rs. 27 crores, and that the complainant would be added as a co-buyer and later made the sole buyer through a no-objection certificate issued by the bank. Between August 2024 and October 2024, the complainant transferred Rs. 12.04 crores via RTGS transactions and demand drafts to the bank account of M/s MG Leasing and Finance. Several documents provided to the complainant to build trust—including proof of ownership, auction details, possession letters, payment acknowledgment receipts, and keys to the property—were subsequently found to be forged and fabricated.

Upon being confronted, Mohit Gogia entered into an agreement dated May 21, 2025, with the complainant and issued a cheque of approximately Rs. 12.19 crores; however, thereafter, the accused persons did not permit the complainant to present the cheque. Mohit Gogia was arrested on November 22, 2025, and is in judicial custody. Co-accused Vishal Malhotra and Sachin Gulati were arrested on November 26, 2025, and Bharat Chhabra and Abhinav Pathak on December 2, 2025. All co-accused persons are presently in judicial custody.

Before the Court, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is not named in the subject FIR, that no money was paid by the complainant to the petitioner, and that the FIR itself records that the payment of Rs. 12.04 crores was made to M/s MG Leasing and Finance, which is the sole proprietorship concern of Mohit Gogia. The petitioner submitted that his financial dealings with Mohit Gogia and other co-accused persons were in the usual course of his money-lending and finance business, spanning several years, as evidenced by ledger accounts for the period April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2026, and had no connection with the complainant’s allegations.

The petitioner further submitted that he had been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons, from whom no recovery had been effected, and that such statements cannot be read against him. It was also contended that the complainant had already settled with Mohit Gogia and others by receiving properties, cars, watches, and jewellery, leaving no basis to implicate him. It was further submitted that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation by sending replies to notices, that all principal accused persons are in judicial custody, and that the matter essentially involves documentary and financial evidence not requiring custodial interrogation.

The State, represented by Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao, opposed the petition strenuously. The prosecution’s case, as disclosed in the Status Report dated March 3, 2026, was that the petitioner exercised control and supervision over commercial transactions involving M/s MG Leasing and Finance, and that multiple co-accused persons, including Mohit Gogia, Sachin Gulati, and Vishal Malhotra, have consistently disclosed that the petitioner directed them to use various bank accounts for circulation and re-routing of the cheated money to himself.

The State submitted that, during the period from August 29, 2024, to October 31, 2024, an amount of Rs. 4.94 crores was transferred from Sachin Gulati’s IDFC Bank account to the petitioner’s HDFC Bank account, and a further Rs. 2.06 crores was transferred from Vishal Malhotra’s Yes Bank account to the same account. A search at the petitioner’s business premises—Baba Ji Ek Omkar Findav (P) Ltd., Subhash Nagar—led to the recovery of incriminating documents, including cheque books, blank signed instruments, vehicle registration documents, and other material.

The State also placed on record that the petitioner had been served with notices under Section 179 of the BNSS and Section 35(3) of the BNSS but had failed to join the investigation; that non-bailable warrants had been obtained and could not be executed despite multiple visits; and that proclamation proceedings under Section 84 of the BNSS had been initiated. The petitioner’s application for cancellation of the NBWs was dismissed by the trial court on March 18, 2026.

The State further submitted that the petitioner is implicated in three other criminal cases and that the Directorate of Enforcement has also registered a separate case under ECIR-HIU-I-38/25 alleging money laundering against him.

The State relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and that persons who continuously defy legal processes and abscond are not entitled to such relief. Reliance was also placed on Rakesh Mittal v. Ajay Pal Gupta, wherein the Supreme Court observed that in offences of a pecuniary nature involving cheating of innocent persons, such factors must weigh heavily while considering bail.

Counsel for the complainant also pointed out that, in the interim bail petition filed by co-accused Mohit Gogia, it was stated that a substantial part of the funds received from complainants had been routed through the petitioner, who allegedly used the money to earn profits by advancing loans through his entities. It was further brought on record that, in his statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Mohit Gogia had referred to WhatsApp transactions amounting to Rs. 10.96 crores between co-accused Bharat Chhabra and the petitioner, reflecting cash-based interest dealings.

The petitioner sought to distinguish the judgment in Srikant Upadhyay by relying on Asha Dubey v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5633, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that there is no absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail merely because proclamation proceedings have been initiated.

The Court, upon considering the entire material on record, declined to grant anticipatory bail. It held that the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR is not determinative, as an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts. The Court noted that the petitioner’s involvement had surfaced through multiple sources, including disclosure statements of co-accused persons, pleadings in judicial proceedings, and statements recorded under statutory provisions.

The Court further observed that the material recovered during the search of the petitioner’s premises warranted custodial interrogation, and that the petitioner’s bank account appeared to have been used as a layering mechanism to obfuscate the money trail. It also took note of the petitioner’s repeated failure to join the investigation despite issuance of notices, non-bailable warrants, and initiation of proclamation proceedings.

Applying the principles laid down in Srikant Upadhyay, the Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail, which is reserved for exceptional cases and cannot be granted to a person who has persistently evaded the process of law. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 764, wherein it was held that economic offences constitute a class apart and require a stricter approach, particularly where the accused attempts to evade investigation.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and disposed of all pending applications.

Case Details:

• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Case: Bail Application No. 817 of 2026 with CRL.M.A. 6279 of 2026
• Coram: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
• Date of Order: March 24, 2026
• Parties: Ram Singh v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
• Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Avtar Singh, and Ms. Ayushi Agarwal, Advocates
• Counsel for State: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel, with Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya, and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates
• Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, Mr. Ankit Gupta, Mr. Mayank Kamra, Ms. Sanya Kashyap, and Mr. Manbhar Mittal, Advocates

[Read Order]