Delhi High Court: In an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR registered at Police Station Janakpuri for the offence punishable under Section 420, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, holding that wife’s anticipatory bail cannot be rejected because co-accused husband failed to surrender after rejection of his anticipatory bail application.
Also Read: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera in FIR Lodged by Assam CM’s Wife
The prosecution case is that the appellant’s husband was employed with the complainant and had purchased a second-hand Mercedes Benz car from him for a consideration of ₹ 41 lakhs. It was alleged that appellant’s husband represented the present applicant, his wife, as the purchaser of the vehicle. Thereafter, the vehicle was allegedly taken to Hathras through a co-accused. According to the complainant, neither was the sale consideration paid nor was the vehicle returned despite directions of the Court. The prosecution further asserted that the vehicle remained in possession of the applicant.
On behalf of the applicant, it was argued that the vehicle had already been returned to the complainant. Reliance was placed upon Annexure P-8 to demonstrate that the complainant had instituted a civil suit for recovery of the vehicle, which was subsequently withdrawn after the return of the car. It was further submitted that the applicant had delivered a child in April 2026 and, considering her recent motherhood and the presence of an infant, custodial interrogation was neither necessary nor justified.
However, the State opposed the bail application and contended that a similar anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant’s husband had already been rejected and that he had still not surrendered. The prosecution maintained that although the vehicle had been returned, the sale amount had not been paid and, therefore, the offence of cheating continued to subsist.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Breach of Undertaking to Compensate Wife for Stridhan
At the outset, the Court noted that the Prima facie case appears to be of civil liability where husband purchased the car in his wife’s name, did not pay cost thereof and subsequently, when the car was returned, the civil suit filed by the complainant de facto was withdrawn.
The Court examined the conduct of the investigating agency and noted that although the FIR had been registered on 16 July 2023, the efforts made to arrest the applicant were sporadic and limited, thereby, suggesting that the State itself was not seriously interested in arresting the applicant.
Rejecting the contention that anticipatory bail should be denied merely because the husband had not surrendered after rejection of his own bail application, the Court held that the liberty of the applicant could not be curtailed on that ground alone. It further stated that the welfare of the 2-month-old infant could not be ignored in the prevailing facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer (IO)/ Station House Officer (SHO).
The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not prejudice either side during trial.
[Priyanshi Sharma v. State, BAIL APPLN. 1990/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16326/2026, decided on 20-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Shahid Ali, Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Mohd. Salman, Mr. Nazar Husssain and Mr. Ahmad Saeed, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with SI Deepak Patwal, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
