CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 1 of 15

$~37

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 22.09.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010414452026

+

DHEERAJ TYAGI .....Petitioner

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026

Through: Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, Mr. Manoj

Kumar and Mr. Lachit Khurana,

Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Ms. Tripta

Kannth, Advs. for R-1 and 2.

Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State.

SI Kuldeep Bhat, PS EOW

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file

certified copies of annexures within a period of two weeks from today.

Crl.M.A.27215/2026 (Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures)

2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the petitioner assails

an order dated 27.07.2026 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the learned

Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in

FIR No. 04/2022, registered at P.S. Economic Offices Wing (Delhi) under

Sections 406/420/506/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 2 of 15

3. The Impugned Order dated 27.07.2026 reads as under:

“

There is an application seeking cancellation of NBWs moved on

behalf of accused Dheeraj Tyagi wherein it is stated that

accused

could not appear before the court due to heavy traffic jam. The

application has no merit or substance as clearly the accused has

taken lame excuses. It is otherwise also clear from the record that

accused is avoiding appearance before the court. Application is

hence dismissed

.

The complainants have moved an application on 09.06.2025

seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that accused Dheeraj

Tyagi got anticipatory bail from the court on the basis of mediation

settlement between the parties whereby he was required to pay a

sum of Rs.80 Lakhs and cheque amounting to Rs.20 Lakhs was

issued but same was dishonured. Vide order dated 25.09.2024,

accused undertook to settle the dispute within three months vide

statement recorded before the court. It is further evident from the

record that applicant/ accused appeared through video

conferencing on 08.06.2026 and submitted that he would execute

the registered sale deed with respect to the area admeasuring 200

square yards in Khasra No.34/2 (4-16), 34/3 (2-04) and 34/9 (4- 08)

situated at village Jindpur, Delhi. The submissions of the accused

were accepted on behalf of complainant.

Again there has been no compliance to the submissions made by

accused himself before the court on 08.06.2026.

Despite the order of personal appearance, accused has not been

appearing before this court.

Taking over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I

find that accused Dheeraj Tyagi is abusing the process of law,

particularly he has failed to abide by his undertaking and

settlement recorded in the present proceedings. Accused has also

not been complying with the bail conditions by disobeying the order

of the court about personal appearance. The conduct of accused

Dheeraj Tyagi makes it clear that to procure bail, he entered into

settlement with no intention to honour the same and also

subsequently violated the undertaking given to the court on

08.06.2026 In the above circumstances, application of the

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 3 of 15

complainants is allowed. The bail granted to the accused is

cancelled

Since bail of accused Dheeraj Tyagi is cancelled and NBWs 1s in

force against him,

.

IO is directed to execute the NBWs and arrest

the accused and be produced before the concerned court

.

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned court as well as

IO/SHO concerned.

Copy of order be given dasti to all the concerned parties.”

4. Pertinently, the Impugned Order came to be passed on an application

moved by the complainants (respondent nos. 2 and 3), whereby the bail

granted to the petitioner in FIR No. 04/2022, registered at P.S. Economic

Offences Wing, Delhi, was cancelled. By the said order, the Investigating

Officer (IO) was also directed to execute the non-bailable warrants issued

vide order dated 21.07.2026, arrest the petitioner, and produce him before

the concerned Court.

5. The aforesaid order dated 21.07.2026 reads as under:

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 4 of 15

6. The relevant facts in the present matter are that the FIR was registered

on 10.01.2022, pursuant to an order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned

Trial Court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(“CrPC”) on allegations that the petitioner and the co-accused who are

related, had cheated the complainant in criminal conspiracy with each other,

in the name of selling their plot to the complainant.

7. Subsequently, while the investigation was pending, the matter was

referred to the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, and thereafter, a

mediation settlement agreement dated 26.10.2023 was arrived at, under

which, the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- to the

complainants/ respondent nos. 2 and 3.

8. Based on such settlement, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 5 of 15

by the learned ASJ/FTC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court s, Delhi on

08.11.2023. The said order reads as under:

“Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant submits that no bail

application is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The accused/applicant is stated to have committed offences

punishable u/s 420/406/120B IPC.

Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant submits that the matter

has been settled between the parties in mediation cell. He has placed

the mediation· settlement agreement dated 26.10.2023 on record. He

submits that accused/applicant is ready to join the investigation and

hand over all the required documents to the IO. He submits that co-

accused Sunil has already been granted regular bail. He further

submits that the parties will file quashing petition before the Hon'ble

High Court Of Delhi very soon. He further submits that

accused/applicant is ready to abide all the conditions if he is granted

bail. He. further submits that no fruitful purpose will be served by

sending the accused/applicant in J.C and hence he should be granted

anticipatory bail.

Ld. Counsel for complainant also submits that since the

matter has been settled between the parties, bail should be

granted to the accused/applicant.

Complainant namely Vinod Verma and Ram Ratan Sharma

submits that they have settled the matter with the

accused/applicant and he should be granted bail.

Per contra, Ld. Addi PP for the State submits that

investigation in the present case is still pending. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of accused/applicant is required and hence he should not be granted bail.

I have heard the submissions and perused the record.

The alleged offences committed by the accused/applicant

are punishable upto 07 years only. The parties have settled the matter before Delhi Mediation Centre.

The complainants/victims

have also submitted that accused should be granted bail.

Accused/applicant is ready to join the investigation and hand over

the required documents to the IO.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 6 of 15

settlement between the parties and submissions made by the

complainants/victims, this Court is of considered opinion that this

is the fit case for grant of anticipatory bail

Accordingly, the present application is hereby allowed.

1O/SHO is directed to release the accused/applicant on bail in

case of arrest on filing personal bail bond in sum of Rs.50,000/-

with one surety in the like amount on the following conditions: -

.

1.The applicant/accused shall not leave NCR till the conclusion of

trial;

2. The applicant/accused shall keep his mobile phone on at all times;

3. The applicant/accused shall make no contact with the prosecution

witnesses;

4. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence in any

manner and shall not try to influence the witnesses directly or

indirectly;

5. The applicant/accused shall commit no offence whatsoever and in the

event of his being involved in any other case and lodging of FIR of DD

entry against him, the State shall bring the same to the notice of the

Court forthwith,·

6. The applicant/accused is directed not to threat the

complainant/witnesses in any manner and shall not come in the

vicinity of the complainant/witnesses.

7. The applicant/accused shall intimate this court as and when he

changes his residential address.

8. Accused/applicant is directed to join the investigation as and when

required by the IO through a written notice.

The State is at liberty to file the cancellation of the bail of the

accused/applicant, if he violates the conditions of the present bail

order.

The bail application stands disposed off accordingly.

Copy of this order be given Dasti to all concerned.

(Virender Kumar Kharta)

ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL)

TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI: 08.11.2023”

9. Thereafter, a cheque for Rs. 20,00,000/- issued by the petitioner

towards the aforesaid settlement, was dishonou red.

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 7 of 15

10. It is noticed that an application for cancellation of the petitioner’s bail

was filed by the complainant at that stage itself, however, the same came to

be withdrawn vide order dated 25.09.2024 upon the assurance of the

petitioner to se ttle the matter.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, subsequently, the

chargesheet was filed on 12.12.2024 and that cognizance was taken vide

order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned CJM (Central), Tis Hazari

Courts, New Delhi.

12. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.02.2025, the petitioner (as also a co-

accused) were admitted to bail. The order dated 01.02.2025 reads as under:

“Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of accused Dheeraj and

Arun Tyagi. Taken on r ecord.

It is submitted by the counsel that both the accused Dheeraj

Tyagi and Aiun Tyagi were released on anticipatory bail during the

course o f investigation and they have always cooperated with the

investigation and ha ve appeared before the court as directed.

Therefore, both the counsel s are praying for regular bail for both the

accused as no purpose will be served by sen ding them behin d the bars

as they are ready to appear before the cour t as and when directed.

On the other hand, State has opposed the request citing the

gravity of the matte r.

Consideri ng the submissions and the mandate of the Satender

Kumar Ant/ case and the fact that the accus ed persons have appeared

before the court upon receiving the summons,

I do not find any ground

to send the accused persons behind the bars. Accordingly. both the

accused persons are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50000/-with one

surety of like amount

Bail bonds furnished and accepted on behalf of accused Dheeraj Tyagi.

subject to the c ondition that the accused persons

will appear before the court as and when directed and shall attend each

and every hearing and shall. not influence the witnesses in any manner.

Further, the accused Arun Tyagi has furnished personal bonds

due to non availability of surety with the undertaking to furnish surety

bonds on the NDOH. The personal bonds are accepted till the NDOH.

Let production warrant of accused Sunil 'Iyagi be issued

returnable for NDOH.

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 8 of 15

Let the copy of the charge-sheet be supplied to the accused

Dheeraj Tyagi and Arun Tyagi.

Be put up for furnishing of surety bonds and further proceedings

on 13.02.2025.”

13. Thereafter, on 09.06.2025, the complainants again moved an

application seeking cancellation of bail, which had been granted on

08.11.2023.

14. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that, on 08.06.2026,

during the pendency of the said application, the petitioner appeared through

video conferencing before the concerned Court and undertook to, inter alia,

execute a registered sale deed with respect to the area admeasuring 200 Sq.

Yards of land in Village, Jindpur, Delhi in favour of the complainant.

15. However, the aforesaid undertaking too, was not honoured by the

petitioner.

16. The order dated 08.06.2026 reads as under:

“08.06.2026

Present: Ms. Sujata, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Applicant /accused Dheerak Tyagi appeared through VC.

Sh. Kamlesh Kumar and Ms. Tripta Kanta, Ld. Counsel

for complainant. Sh. Anil Sehgal and Sh. Lalit Khurana,

Ld. Counsel for applicant / accused Dheeraj Tyagi.

Sh.Shiv Kumar Tyagi, father of applicant/ accused

Dheeraj Tyagi.

SI Kuldeep Bhati PS EOW is present.

Applicant/ accused appeared through VC, and submits that he

will execute the registered sale deed with respect to the area

admeasuring 200 Sq.Yd. in Khasra No. 34/2(4- 16), 34/3 (2- 04) and

34/9 (4-08) situated at village Jindpur, Delhi on or before 15.06.2026

and allow the complainant to make boundary wall. Also for the rest of

the area admeasuring 300 Sq.Yd. in the aforesaid khasra, he will

execute the registered documents on or before 16.07.2026, as he

submits that he has already entered into agreement to sell with respect

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 9 of 15

to the area admeasuring 300 sq.yd and the registered documents with

respect to the said area will be executed in his favour within 30 days.

Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as complainant Vinod agreed to

their suggestion.

Put up on 16.07.2026 for further proceedings as well as for

arguments on the cancellation of bail.

(Priyanka Bhagat)

ASJ(SC-RC), Central

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

08.06.2026”

17. Thereafter, as noticed vide order dated 21.07.2026, the petitioner

failed to appear in person before the Court, despite there being specific

directions for his appearance. Consequently, vide the said order, non bailable

warrants were issued against the petitioner.

18. Subsequently, vide the Impugned Order, the learned Principal District

& Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, rejected the petitioner’s

explanation of not being able to appear before the Court due to a heavy

traffic jam, and termed the same to be a “lame excuse”. The Court further

observed that the petitioner was avoiding appearance before the Court and

also rendered the finding that the petitioner ha d entered into settlement with

the complainants with no intention to honour it, but only to secure bail.

19. The Court further noticed that the petitioner had also violated the

undertaking given to the Court on 08.06.2026. Consequently, vide the

Impugned Order, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.

20. The primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the petitioner was admitted to bail (vide order dated 01.02.2025 passed by

learned CJM (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi), after filing of the

chargesheet in the matter.

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 10 of 15

21. It is further submitted that the bail in question was granted by the

learned Magistrate and could, therefore, only be cancelled by the learned

Magistrate under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. [Section 480(5) BNSS ]. It is

accordingly contended that the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge

has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under

22. The said submission is misconceived.

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

[Section 483(3) BNSS].

23. Section 437(5) Cr.P.C empowers a Court which has released a person

on bail under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of that Section to direct his

re-arrest. The said provision, therefore, confers upon the Court which has

granted bail, the power to direct re-arrest of the accused.

24. Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., on the other hand, confers a special power

upon the High Court and the Court of Session to direct that “any person who

has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to

custody”. The expression “any person” here, is not confined to a person

released on bail by the High Court or the Court of Session; it extends to

every person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII,

irrespective of the Court which granted such bail. The corresponding

provision under the BNSS, namely Section 483(3), is in pari materia with

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

25. The said position has been reaffirmed by a Division Bench of the

Gujarat High Court in Rameshbhai Lallubhai Luni v. Devraj Bhalabhai,

1987 SCC OnLine Guj 76, whereby it has been observed as under:

“8. It is manifest on a plain reading of Section 439(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code that the jurisdiction to direct that any person, who has

been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code, be arrested and

committed to the custody, is vested both in the Court of Session and the

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 11 of 15

High Court, even though the bail order may have been made by a

magistrate. Even a bare reading of the provision leaves no doubt as to

the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and the High Court is

a concurrent jurisdiction and there is nothing in the provision itself even

remotely suggesting that the High Court cannot entertain an application

for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure

Code directly, that is, without an approach having been first made to the

Court of Session in that behalf.

26. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1978) 1 SCC 118, the

Supreme Court has observed as under:

It is also not brought to our notice that a

practice has grown in our High Court whereby an application for

cancellation of bail is not directly entertained by the High Court and if

somebody makes such an application directly to the High Court the is

asked to approach the Sessions Court first or that such an application

directly made to the High Court is transmitted down to the concerned

Sessions Judge for hearing and disposal. In fact, we were told at the Bar

that all along such applications for cancellation of bail are directly

entertained by the High Court even though the bail order might have

been made by a judicial magistrate.”

“16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court

or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under

Section 498 CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate

refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court

of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly

under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of

Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be

arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was

worded in somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or

Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail

under sub- section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In

other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had

been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody

only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a

Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him

to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an

application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody,

is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2). Under Section 439(2) of

the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under

Chapter XXXIII by any Court including the Court of Session to custody,

if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a

Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted by

the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 12 of 15

trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High

Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to

bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain

new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State

and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach

the High Court being the superior Court under Section 439(2) to commit

the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the

order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new

circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is

futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent

in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position

follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the

High Court.

27. In Yogesh Kumar Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 8092,

it has been observed as under:

”

“In the case at hand, the applicant/first informant herein had already

approached the Court of Sessions, Ghaziabad seeking cancellation of the

bail granted by it under Section 439(2) of the Cr. P.C. The Court of

Sessions vide order dated 10.9.2024 refused to cancel the bail already

granted. In the opinion of the Court, the applicant having exercised his

option to seek cancellation under Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C. before the

Court of Sessions cannot now approach this Court by moving another

Bail Cancellation Application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. A challenge

would have to be made to the orders rejecting the Bail Cancellation

Application and the same cannot be achieved in the present proceedings.

Had the applicant/first informant approached this Court at the first

instance seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party

No. 2 by the Court of Sessions by its order dated 23.12.2022 invoking the

provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C., the application would be

maintainable of Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C., the application would be

maintainable.

28. The Supreme Court, in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2037, has observed as under:

”

“14. Before proceeding further, we consider it appropriate to begin our

analysis by addressing one of the arguments raised by Mr. Chakraborty.

He has challenged the very maintainability of the application filed before

the High Court. According to him, once an application under

Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail has been rejected by

the Sessions Judge, a second application under the same provision

cannot be filed directly before the High Court. Instead, the proper course

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 13 of 15

would be either to challenge the Sessions Judge's order in a petition for

revision, or to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under

Section 482, Cr.P.C.

15. We are unable to agree with this argument. We note that, in the

present case, the application before the High Court was filed under

“Section 482 r/w 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure”. That being the

case, nothing prevented the High Court from exercising its inherent

powers

29. Thus, the power conferred upon the Magistrate under Section 437(5)

CrPC does not whittle down or restrict the power vested in the High Court

or the Court of Session under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., which extends to a

person who has been released on bail by a Magistrate.

.”

30. The Court of Session, being a superior Court to the Court of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, was competent to entertain the application filed by the

complainant seeking cancellation of the bail which had been granted by the

Magistrate Court.

31. There is a further reason why the submission of the petitioner must

fail.

32. The liberty enjoyed by the petitioner flowed directly from the order

dated 08.11.2023 granting anticipatory bail on the basis of the mediated

settlement.

33. The order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the learned CJM followed

directly from the earlier order dated 08.11.2023. The said order did not do

away with the basis on which the petitioner's liberty had originally been

granted, nor did it shield him from the consequences of breaching the terms

on which that liberty was granted.

34. It is next contended that bail cannot be cancelled merely on account of

the accused’s failure to comply with the terms of a settlement, as bail

proceedings cannot be employed as a mode of recovery of money. It is

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 14 of 15

further contended that the petitioner has not violated any condition of the

order dated 01.02.2025. In support of these submissions, reliance has been

placed on the following judgments:

(i) Shivnarayan Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., passed in

Cr.M.P. No.886/2024 (in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi);

(ii) Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and Anr. (2004) 3

SCC 388; and

(iii) Dilip Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC

779

35. It is true that the jurisdiction to grant or cancel bail is not a

mechanism for recovery of money, and that a mere failure to pay an amount

agreed upon under a settlement would not, by itself and without more,

justify cancellation of bail. However, that is not the case here.

36. The Impugned Order does not rest on non-payment of money alone. It

rests on the petitioner’s conduct towards the Court inasmuch the following

circumstances have been clearly noted:

(i) The petitioner obtained anticipatory bail on the basis of a mediated

settlement which he did not honour and the cheque itself issued by the

petitioner pursuant to the Mediated Settlement Agreement was

dishonoured;

(ii) On 25.09.2024, the accused undertook to settle the disputes vide

the statement recorded before the Trial Court. However, the same was

not done ;

(iii) The petitioner gave a further undertaking to the Court on

08.06.2026 to execute a registered sale deed in favout of the

complainant, which was accepted by the complainant. However the

CRL.M.C. 6516/2026 Page 15 of 15

same, too, was not honoured by the petitioner; and

(iv) The petitioner failed to appear in person despite specific

directions necessitating non bailable warrants and offered an

explanation which the Court found to be a “lame excuse”.

37. An accused who secures his liberty by holding out a settlement and

then repeatedly acts in violation / breach of undertaking given to the Court,

abuses the process of the Court and the liberty granted to him. Further, the

very order dated 01.02.2025 on which the petitioner relies, requires him to

appear before the Court, as and when directed.

38. The finding of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge that the

petitioner had entered into the settlement without any intention of honouring

the same is a significant finding. The same cannot be said to be perverse or

based on irrelevant considerations.

39. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is

to be exercised sparingly, either to prevent abuse of the process of law or to

secure the ends of justice.

40. The conduct of the petitioner, far from warranting the exercise of

such jurisdiction, has been obnoxious.

41. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the

Impugned Order or with the non bailable warrants.

42. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.

SACHIN DATTA, J

SEPTEMBER 22, 2026/ cl