Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam

"Misrepresentation of Ownership and Forged Consent Terms Can't Be Brushed Aside as Mere Civil Dispute", In a significant ruling addressing the seriousness of economic offences involving real estate investments, the Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed by three individuals—Vishal Veersingh Sukhani, Dalip Dalal, and Shobhit Aggarwal—accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a failed housing redevelopment project.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while deciding Vishal Veersingh Sukhani & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi), held that “the allegations in the present case pertain to serious economic offences involving inducement and misrepresentation,” and that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was essential to uncover the money trail and investigate the alleged conspiracy.

The case arose from FIR No. 456/2024 registered at PS Anand Vihar under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC, where the complainant, Neeraj Jain—through his firm RBN Equity Consultant Pvt. Ltd.—alleged that the petitioners induced him to invest ₹1.91 crores in two flats in a redevelopment project in Mumbai. Despite the investment, the promised flats were never delivered, and it was alleged that the petitioners misrepresented their authority and siphoned funds while forging consent terms during arbitral proceedings.

"Petitioners Misrepresented Control Over Flats Not Owned by Them"

The Court noted that although the petitioners only owned 9 flats, they represented themselves before the arbitrator as having rights over 11 flats—2 of which belonged to the complainant, who was not a party to the arbitral proceedings.

Justice Dudeja observed: “The petitioners were aware of the receipt of ₹1.91 crores by the complainant, yet they misrepresented the same as ₹40 lakhs... The petitioners misrepresented themselves as representatives of 11 flats, when in fact they had purchased only 9 flats.”

The petitioners had argued that the discrepancy was an error on the part of the developer and had later been acknowledged in a subsequent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 04.01.2025. However, the Court rejected this as a ground for anticipatory bail, stating that such documents do not erase earlier allegations of deliberate fraud and inducement.

“Whether such documents were executed bona fide or as an afterthought to cover up earlier acts is a matter that requires detailed investigation,” the Court remarked, underscoring that civil proceedings or settlements do not negate criminal culpability.

Civil Dispute Argument Rejected: Economic Offences Must Be Viewed with Greater Stringency

The petitioners contended that the matter was essentially a civil dispute, pointing to pending civil proceedings in the Bombay High Court and City Civil Court, and asserted that they were passive investors with no role in the misappropriation. However, the Court rejected this defence.

“The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioners were not passive investors but were actively involved in the project and in dealings concerning the flats,” the Court held, adding that custodial interrogation was warranted to examine the extent of conspiracy and financial manipulation.

Justice Dudeja also cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466, and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, to highlight that economic offences require a “different yardstick” when it comes to bail, particularly given the damage such crimes cause to public trust and the financial fabric of society.

“Custodial interrogation is significantly more effective for eliciting information compared to questioning an accused who is protected by an anticipatory bail order,” the Court emphasized, quoting the apex court's observations.

Court Balances Liberty and Investigation; Denies Pre-Arrest Bail

Rejecting the plea that the entire case was documentary and that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, the Court held that anticipatory bail would “undeniably obstruct the course of further investigation.”

It concluded that the magnitude of the funds involved, the nature of the allegations, and the apparent orchestration of misrepresentation justified denial of pre-arrest protection.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications—Bail Application Nos. 4476/2024, 4530/2024, and 4556/2024—were dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of bail and shall not influence the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026