SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 781

High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Samrat Singh Nirula & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. Nos. 145, 146 of 2015
Decided On : 12-05-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ashok Bhasin, Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocates, Abhishek Dhingra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Satish Verma, APP, Amit Sibal, Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocates, Atul Sharma, Manohar Malik, Nitesh Jain, Balbinder Jalar, Sunil K. Mittal, Advocates.

The court emphasized the need to carefully evaluate the circumstances of each case when considering anticipatory bail, taking into account the nature of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or repeating similar offenses.

Headnote:

Forgery - Anticipatory Bail - Section 419/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC - [Section 419, Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471, Section 506, Section 120B]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating. The complainant alleged that the accused induced him to invest in agricultural land through forged documents and cheated him of a substantial amount of money. The accused denied the allegations, claiming that the complainant and his wife forged the documents and filed a false complaint against them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant failed to disclose the source of the cash amount allegedly paid to the petitioners and that the case involved serious forgery and fabrication of documents. The court also noted discrepancies in the investigation process, including the filing of a final report by the investigating officer despite the transfer of the case to another unit. The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, emphasizing that the accused should be released on bail if arrested, subject to certain conditions.

Issues: Allegations of forgery and cheating, failure to disclose the source of cash payment, discrepancies in the investigation process

Ratio Decidendi: The court can draw adverse inferences against the accused, but the police cannot compel answers through custodial interrogation. Custodial interrogation should be the last option and restricted to cases where it is imperative for security reasons or to prevent the accused from absconding or tampering with evidence. The court should consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the accused, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or repeating similar offenses. The court should also evaluate the entire available material against the accused and consider the impact of granting anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, directing that the petitioners should be released on bail if arrested, subject to specific conditions.

Judgment :-

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 12/2015 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/506/120B IPC registered at P.S. New Friends Colony.

2. The case of the complainant, namely, Gaurav Kalra is that in the month of May, 2013 the accused/petitioners Samrat Singh Nirula and Manrich Singh Narang called the complainant at their residence i.e. A-258 New Friends Colony, New Delhi, where the other co-accused persons were present and they all allured the complainant by telling that accused/petitioners have got a good opportunity to purchase approximately 40 Acres of agricultural land at Sohna (Haryana) for Rs.18.33 Crores.

2.1 They further assured the complainant that genuineness of all the documents have been verified by them and that the said land is free from all encumbrances. In the meeting the accused persons offered 33.33% share as a partner to the complainant. The accused persons told that they have already paid an amount of Rs.6 crores as part payment and total payment is to be made on or before 30th June, 2013 otherwise deal would not be completed. A copy of an Agreement to sell dated 6th May, 2013 signed between Ms. Raj Bala W/o Sh. Hari Dass Gupta as the owner and as Director of M/s Goldenkist Developers Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused persons was also given to the complainant by them at their residence. As per the Agreement to sell, Mrs.Raj Bala was shown as the owner of 24 Acres, 2 Kanal and 7 Marlas and as a director of M/s Goldenkist Developers Pvt. Ltd. was also shown as owner of 14 Acres and 2 Marlas of land in Sohna, District. Gurgaon. Accused persons also showed the land in question at Sohna, District. Gurgaon, to the complainant.

2.2 Later on the basis of representation of accused persons Rs.6.11 Crores was paid by the complainant to the accused persons against the partnership of 33.33% in the purchase of land in Sohna.

2.3 It is alleged that on 24th May, 2013 an MoU between Samrat Singh Nirula, Manrich Singh Narang and Smt. Priya Kalra w/o Sh.Gaurav Kalra was signed to this effect. Later on, in the first week of June 2013 accused persons told the complainant that in order to save the stamp duty, they will get the land transferred in the name of complainant through GPA.

2.4 It is alleged that Manrich Singh Narang told the complainant that rest of the payment against their share to Mrs.Raj Bala has also been made by them to the sellers of the Sohna land. Therefore on 7th June, 2013, two GPAs were executed; (1) Smt. Rajbala W/o Sh. Hari Dass (as owner of the land) in favour of Smt. Priya Kalra W/o Sh. Gaurav Kalra (2) Mrs.Raj Bala (as Director of M/s Goldenkist Developers Pvt. Ltd., Nehru Place, New Delhi) in favour of Priya Kalra W/o Sh. Gaurav Kalra, and both the above GPAs were registered in the office of Sub. Registrar at Noida, (UP). In this process a blank cheque and some blank papers were signed and handed over by complainant to the accused(s).

2.5 It is stated that in the month of May, 2014, the accused persons again sought financial help of Rs.4.6 Crores and requested that out of the said amount Rs.60 lacs was required through cheque. A MoU to this effect was also signed between Smt. Surinder Kaur and Jatinder Kaur Narang (as first party) and Sh. Gaurav Kalra (as second Party). Complainant again paid Rs.4.6 crores i.e. Rs.4 crores in cash in 34 installments and Rs.60 lacs by way of two cheques (Cheque no. 384135 dated 29th May,2014 for Rs.25 lacs to Mr. Samrat Nirula and Cheque no. 384136 dated 31st May, 2014 for Rs.35 lacs to Mr. Manrich Narang). Against this financial help, the complainant was made a major partner (63.15%) in two of their office spaces owned by alleged persons at Kilokari, New Delhi.

2.6 In August, 2014 the complainant visited the land in question at Sohna (Haryana) and found some sign boards of different persons showing as owners. On suspicion, the complainant conducted an enquiry on the genuineness o

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top