< Back

Aslam vs State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi 2026 DHC 1305

Synopsis

This judgment addresses an application for anticipatory bail filed by a tenant accused of obtaining transfer of an electricity connection in his name using allegedly forged documents of property transfer. The core legal controversy revolves around whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the prosecution's case rests primarily on the fact that the transfer request was generated from the accused's mobile phone and an OTP was received on the same device, but critical evidence—including technical logs from the electricity distribution company (TPDDL) and the OTP generation records—has not been collected during investigation, and no document bearing the accused's English signatures (crucial because the accused claims to sign only in Urdu) has been found. The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail, holding that in the absence of foundational evidence linking the accused to the actual creation or submission of forged documents, and given the significant gaps in the investigation, depriving the accused of his personal liberty was not justified at the pre-arrest stage.

Case Analysis:

Aslam vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)

Citation: 2026:DHC:1305
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date of Judgment: February 16, 2026
Court Registry: BAIL APPLN. 4496/2024

1. Proper Heading of the Judgment

Aslam V. State (Govt of Nct of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Girish Kathpalia
Judgment Date: February 16, 2026 (Oral Judgment)
Petition: Bail Application No. 4496/2024 under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (seeking anticipatory bail)

2. Legal Framework

2.1. Principal Legislation and Provisions

The judgment primarily involves the interpretation and application of:

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – The FIR was registered under the following provisions:
Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating.
Section 471 – Using as genuine a forged document.

2.2. Related Precedents and Principles

While the judgment does not expressly cite specific case law, it implicitly applies the well-settled principles governing anticipatory bail as established by the Supreme Court of India, including:

Presumption of Innocence: The applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and pre-arrest bail is a mechanism to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prima Facie Case Standard: At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the court must assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true, based on the material collected during investigation.
Balance Between Individual Liberty and Investigative Needs: The court must balance the right to personal liberty of the accused against the legitimate needs of the investigation and the interests of justice.
Gaps in Investigation as a Factor Favour Bail: Where the investigation has significant gaps and critical evidence has not been collected, the prosecution's case at the pre-arrest stage remains weak, favouring the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

3.1. Registration of FIR

On a complaint lodged by the concerned authorities, FIR No. 614/2024 was registered at Police Station Wazirabad, Delhi, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the accused/applicant (Aslam) and possibly others (though the judgment focuses on the applicant alone).

3.2. Nature of Allegations

The prosecution case, as flowing from the FIR, was as follows:

Original Ownership: The subject property was originally owned by one Shajika Babu, in whose name the electricity connection was installed by TPDDL (Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited), the electricity distribution company.
Transfer of Connection: The accused/applicant, who was a tenant in the subject property, allegedly obtained transfer of the electricity connection in his name.
Forged Documents: The transfer was allegedly obtained on the basis of forged documents purporting to show transfer of the property itself. The FIR alleged that the accused submitted forged documents to TPDDL to effect the transfer.
Death of Original Owner: The original owner, Shajika Babu, had since passed away, which complicated the verification of the original title and the alleged forged documents.

3.3. Developments During Pendency of Bail Application

Compromise Between Parties: The parties (the accused and the legal heirs/representatives of the original owner?) had compromised the disputes. One Yatindra Nirvik executed a sale deed of the property in favour of the accused/applicant.
Accused's Defence: The accused contended that:
The alleged forged documents were not created by him.
He does not know English and signs all his documents in Urdu.
The compromise and subsequent sale deed regularize his possession and title.

3.4. Prosecution's Case and Investigation Status

Prosecution's Position on Compromise: The learned APP rightly submitted that settlement between private parties does not absolve the accused of liability for obtaining transfer of electricity connection on forged documents. The offence involves cheating TPDDL (a public utility), and private settlement cannot wipe out criminal liability.
Basis of Accused's Involvement: The Investigating Officer (IO) disclosed that the accused is connected with the alleged offence because:
The electricity connection transfer request was generated from the accused's mobile phone.
A one-time password (OTP) was sent to and received on the accused's mobile phone following the request.
Gaps in Investigation: Critically, the IO admitted that:
No technical logs from TPDDL reflecting receipt of the request from the accused's mobile phone have been collected during investigation.
No records of the generation of the OTP have been collected.
No document bearing English signatures of the accused/applicant has been found.

3.5. Submissions of Parties

Petitioner's Submissions (Accused/Tenant):

Parties have compromised, and Yatindra Nirvik has executed a sale deed in favour of the accused.
The alleged forged documents were not created by the accused.
The accused does not know English and signs all documents in Urdu.
The implication is that any document in English (including the alleged forged transfer application) could not have been signed by him.

State's Submissions (Prosecution):

Opposed bail, emphasizing that settlement between private parties does not absolve criminal liability for forgery and cheating against TPDDL.
However, on instructions of the IO, conceded that they have no document bearing English signatures of the accused.
Acknowledged that critical technical evidence (logs, OTP records) has not been collected.

4. Issues Before the High Court

4.1. Primary Issue

Whether the accused/applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of obtaining transfer of electricity connection through forged documents, where the primary link to the accused is the generation of a transfer request from his mobile phone and receipt of an OTP, but critical technical evidence has not been collected and no document bearing his English signatures exists?

4.2. Subsidiary Considerations

What is the evidentiary value of the mobile phone request and OTP in the absence of supporting technical logs from TPDDL?
Whether the accused's inability to sign in English (signing only in Urdu) is relevant in assessing his involvement in submitting English-language forged documents.
Whether a subsequent compromise and sale deed between private parties has any bearing on criminal liability for forgery and cheating against a public utility.
Whether the gaps in investigation (non-collection of critical evidence) justify grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Ratio Decidendi

5.1. Weakness of Prosecution Case at Pre-Arrest Stage

The court held that where the prosecution's case against an accused rests on limited connecting factors (such as a mobile phone request and OTP), but the foundational evidence supporting those factors (technical logs, OTP generation records) has not been collected during investigation, the case against the accused at the pre-arrest stage remains weak. In such circumstances, depriving the accused of his personal liberty by denying anticipatory bail is not justified.

"The IO submits that neither any technical logs from TPDDL reflecting receipt of request from mobile phone of the accused/applicant nor any generation of OTP has been collected during investigation, nor any document bearing English signatures of the accused/applicant has been found. In these circumstances, I find no reason to deprive the accused/applicant liberty."

5.2. Relevance of the Accused's Linguistic Limitations

The court implicitly accepted the relevance of the accused's claim that he does not know English and signs only in Urdu. Since the alleged forged documents were presumably in English and would have required English signatures, the absence of any document bearing the accused's English signatures weakens the prosecution's case that he was the one who created or submitted the forged documents.

5.3. Limited Effect of Private Settlement

The court acknowledged the prosecution's submission that settlement between private parties does not absolve criminal liability for offences involving cheating of a public utility (TPDDL). However, this factor alone was not sufficient to deny bail given the other weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

"Learned APP submits, and rightly so that settlement between the private parties does not absolve the accused of liability for obtaining transfer of electricity connection on forged documents."

5.4. Distinction Between Factual Involvement and Evidentiary Proof

The court recognized a crucial distinction: while it is "not in question that TPDDL received a transfer connection request based on forged documents," the critical question is "whether it is the accused/applicant, being tenant who tried to play fraud with TPDDL or it is someone else, who tried to get the accused/applicant falsely involved." This framing acknowledges that the existence of a fraud does not automatically prove the accused's participation in it, especially when evidence linking the accused is weak or uncollected.

5.5. Burden on Prosecution at Bail Stage

Though not explicitly stated, the judgment implies that at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the prosecution bears some burden to demonstrate a prima facie case connecting the accused to the alleged offence. Where critical evidence that would establish such connection has not been collected, the prosecution cannot rely on mere assertions to oppose bail.

6. Legal Principles Established/reaffirmed

6.1. Anticipatory Bail and Gaps in Investigation

The judgment reaffirms that significant gaps in investigation—particularly the failure to collect foundational evidence that would link the accused to the offence—weigh heavily in favour of granting anticipatory bail. The prosecution cannot expect courts to deprive an accused of liberty based on an incomplete investigation where critical evidence remains uncollected.

6.2. Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Bail Determination

Personal characteristics of the accused, such as linguistic abilities (inability to read/write English, signing only in Urdu), are relevant considerations in assessing the likelihood of the accused's involvement in offences involving English-language documents. Such characteristics can create reasonable doubt about the accused's capacity to have committed the alleged forgery.

6.3. Distinction Between Offence and Perpetrator

Courts must distinguish between the undeniable occurrence of an offence (e.g., forged documents were submitted to TPDDL) and the identification of the perpetrator. The former does not automatically establish the latter, particularly when the evidence connecting the accused is weak or missing.

6.4. Private Settlement in Cases Involving Public Utilities

While private settlements between parties are relevant in certain categories of offences (such as compoundable offences), they have limited bearing on offences involving public utilities or public interest. Cheating a public utility like an electricity distribution company affects public interest and cannot be wiped out by private compromise. However, this factor alone is not determinative of bail.

6.5. Need for Thorough Investigation Before Opposing Bail

The judgment implicitly sends a message to investigating agencies that they must conduct a thorough investigation and collect all relevant evidence before opposing anticipatory bail. Relying on incomplete investigations to oppose bail may backfire, as courts will view gaps in evidence as favouring the accused.

7. Court's Analysis and Examination

7.1. Framing the Core Question

The court began by identifying the undisputed fact: "It is not in question that TPDDL received a transfer connection request based on forged documents." This established that an offence had indeed occurred—someone had submitted forged documents to obtain transfer of the electricity connection.

The court then framed the critical question: "The question is as to whether it is the accused/applicant, being tenant who tried to play fraud with TPDDL or it is someone else, who tried to get the accused/applicant falsely involved."

This framing is significant because it acknowledges two possibilities: (a) the accused is the perpetrator, or (b) someone else used the accused's identity (perhaps through his mobile phone) to commit the fraud, thereby implicating him falsely. The court's subsequent analysis tests which possibility is supported by the evidence collected.

7.2. Analysis of the Mobile Phone Evidence

The prosecution's case linking the accused rested on two factual assertions:

Fact 1: The electricity connection transfer request was generated from the accused's mobile phone.
Fact 2: A one-time password (OTP) was sent to and received on the accused's mobile phone following the request.

The court then examined the evidentiary basis for these assertions:

The IO admitted that no technical logs from TPDDL reflecting receipt of the request from the accused's mobile phone had been collected.
The IO admitted that no records of OTP generation had been collected.

The court's implicit reasoning: The prosecution asserts that the request came from the accused's phone, but they have not obtained the very documents (technical logs) that would prove this assertion. Similarly, they assert that an OTP was sent to his phone, but they have not obtained the records that would prove this. Without these foundational documents, the assertions remain unsubstantiated.

7.3. Analysis of the Signature Evidence

The court considered the accused's claim that he does not know English and signs all documents in Urdu. The prosecution conceded that they have no document bearing English signatures of the accused.

The court's reasoning: The alleged forged documents were presumably in English (as most official documents in Delhi are) and would have required the applicant's signature. If the accused genuinely cannot sign in English and no English signatures of his have been found, this casts doubt on whether he was the person who submitted the application. It is possible that someone else—perhaps the actual forger—signed the documents in English, implicating the accused without his knowledge or involvement.

7.4. Analysis of the Compromise and Subsequent Sale Deed

The court noted but did not give significant weight to the subsequent developments:

Yatindra Nirvik executed a sale deed in favour of the accused.
Parties had compromised their disputes.

The court implicitly accepted the prosecution's position that these private arrangements do not absolve criminal liability for cheating TPDDL. However, the court did not treat these factors as prejudicial to the accused either. They were merely noted as part of the factual matrix but not relied upon in the bail determination.

7.5. Assessment of the Investigation's Completeness

The court's analysis reveals a concern about the investigation's thoroughness. Critical evidence that would either confirm or disprove the prosecution's theory—technical logs, OTP records, English signatures of the accused—had not been collected. This suggested that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, and the prosecution's opposition to bail was based more on suspicion than on collected evidence.

7.6. Balance Between Liberty and Investigation

The court balanced:

On one hand: The right of the accused to personal liberty under Article 21, and the presumption of innocence.
On the other hand: The seriousness of the allegations (forgery, cheating), the need for unhindered investigation, and the public interest in prosecuting offences against public utilities.

The court concluded that, given the significant gaps in evidence and the weak link between the accused and the forgery, the balance tilted in favour of granting anticipatory bail. The accused could still be investigated, and if evidence emerged, the prosecution could proceed—but he need not be incarcerated pending that investigation.

8. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

8.1. Strengths of the Judgment

8.1.1. Protection of Personal Liberty

The judgment robustly protects the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. By refusing to allow the accused to be arrested based on an incomplete investigation and weak connecting evidence, the court upheld the principle that liberty is the rule and incarceration the exception, particularly at the pre-trial stage.

8.1.2. Emphasis on Evidence-Based Investigation

The court's scrutiny of the investigation's gaps sends a strong message to investigating agencies: they cannot expect courts to deprive citizens of liberty based on mere assertions. They must collect and present the evidence that forms the basis of their suspicion. The failure to collect technical logs and OTP records—evidence that was clearly available and crucial—was justifiably treated as a weakness in the prosecution's case.

8.1.3. Nuanced Understanding of Digital Evidence

The judgment demonstrates a nuanced understanding of digital evidence. The court recognized that while mobile phone requests and OTPs can be evidence of involvement, they are not conclusive without supporting technical logs. This is particularly important in an era where mobile phones can be misused by others, and OTPs can be intercepted or generated without the phone owner's knowledge or participation.

8.1.4. Consideration of the Accused's Personal Circumstances

The court's consideration of the accused's linguistic limitations (inability to sign in English) shows sensitivity to the social and educational background of accused persons. Not everyone is fluent in English, and this fact can be relevant in assessing the likelihood of their involvement in offences involving English-language documents.

8.1.5. Balanced Approach to Private Settlements

The court correctly noted that private settlements do not absolve criminal liability in cases involving public utilities. This preserves the integrity of criminal law and prevents parties from "compromising" offences that affect public interest. At the same time, the court did not use this factor to deny bail, recognizing that the primary issue was the weakness of the evidence, not the existence of a compromise.

8.2. Potential Concerns and Limitations

8.2.1. Limited Analysis of the Mobile Phone Ownership

The judgment does not explore whether the mobile phone in question was exclusively used by the accused. In many households, particularly where the accused is a tenant, mobile phones may be shared, or others may have access. The court assumed that the request from the accused's phone and OTP to his phone necessarily connected him to the offence, but this assumption may be flawed. A more thorough analysis would have considered whether anyone else had access to the phone.

8.2.2. Absence of Discussion on the Forged Documents

The judgment does not describe the nature of the forged documents or how they were submitted. Were they submitted online (explaining the mobile phone request) or physically? If physical documents were submitted, were there any signatures or handwriting that could be compared with the accused's? This information would have helped assess the strength of the case against the accused.

8.2.3. Weight Given to the Compromise

While the court correctly noted that private settlement does not absolve criminal liability, it did not consider whether the subsequent sale deed (executed by Yatindra Nirvik) might have implications for the forgery allegations. If the person who allegedly executed the sale deed now confirms the transfer, does that affect the "forgery" character of the earlier documents? This nuance was not explored.

8.2.4. Potential for Misuse

The judgment's reasoning—that absence of technical logs and OTP records weakens the prosecution's case—could be misused by accused persons to delay investigation or argue for bail in every case involving digital evidence. Investigating agencies must now be extremely diligent in collecting all technical evidence before opposing bail, which may be challenging given resource constraints.

8.2.5. Limited Consideration of Public Interest

The judgment acknowledges that the offence involves cheating TPDDL, a public utility, but does not deeply consider the public interest in deterring such offences. Electricity theft and fraud through forged documents impose costs on public utilities and, ultimately, on consumers. A stronger public interest analysis might have weighed more heavily against bail.

8.2.6. Risk of Witness Tampering or Evidence Destruction

The judgment does not address the risk that the accused, if granted anticipatory bail, might tamper with witnesses or destroy evidence. Given that the investigation was incomplete and critical evidence (technical logs, OTP records) had not been collected, there was a risk that the accused could influence TPDDL officials or others to obstruct the collection of this evidence.

8.3. Broader Implications

8.3.1. For Anticipatory Bail Jurisprudence in Economic Offences

The judgment contributes to the developing jurisprudence on anticipatory bail in economic offences and offences involving digital evidence. It establishes that in such cases, the prosecution must have collected foundational digital evidence before opposing bail; mere assertions about mobile phone usage or OTPs are insufficient.

8.3.2. For Investigation of Cyber/Digital Crimes

The judgment will likely prompt investigating agencies to be more thorough in collecting digital evidence, including obtaining technical logs from service providers, documenting OTP generation, and preserving all relevant digital records before seeking custodial interrogation.

8.3.3. For Cases Involving Forgery by Tenants

The case highlights a common scenario—tenants obtaining utilities or services using documents related to the property. Such cases often involve complex questions of who created the documents and whether the landlord/owner was complicit. The judgment provides guidance on how courts should approach bail in such cases: by focusing on the evidence linking the specific accused to the forgery.

8.3.4. For Protection of Linguistically Marginalized Accused

The judgment's consideration of the accused's inability to sign in English is significant for protecting accused persons from marginalized linguistic backgrounds. It recognizes that the inability to engage with English-language documents can be a relevant factor in assessing guilt.

8.3.5. For the Standard of "Prima Facie Case" at Bail Stage

The judgment implicitly raises the standard of what constitutes a "prima facie case" for opposing bail. It suggests that the prosecution must have collected and be able to present the evidence that forms the basis of its suspicion, not merely assert that such evidence exists or will be collected.

8.4. Comparative Analysis

8.4.1. Comparison with Supreme Court's Anticipatory Bail Jurisprudence

The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's consistent view that anticipatory bail is not to be granted mechanically but requires a careful assessment of the facts. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that the grant of anticipatory bail depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The present judgment applies this principle by conducting a fact-specific analysis of the evidence (or lack thereof) against the accused.

8.4.2. Comparison with Approach in Forgery Cases

In cases involving forgery and cheating, courts are generally cautious in granting bail given the seriousness of the offences and the potential for tampering with documentary evidence. This judgment departs from that cautious approach by focusing on the specific weaknesses in the prosecution's case rather than the general seriousness of the offences.

8.4.3. Comparison with Digital Evidence Cases

In cases involving digital evidence, courts are increasingly recognizing that technical evidence must be properly collected and preserved. This judgment aligns with that trend by requiring the prosecution to have collected technical logs and OTP records before opposing bail.

9. Final Outcome

The High Court:

Allowed the bail application filed by the petitioner-accused (Aslam).
Directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned.
Directed the accused/applicant to join the investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO/SHO concerned.
Disposed of the application accordingly.

The effect of this judgment is that the accused is protected from arrest in connection with FIR No. 614/2024, subject to compliance with the bail conditions and his cooperation with the investigation. The investigation will continue, and if sufficient evidence is collected, the prosecution may proceed with trial—but the accused will not be incarcerated pending that process.