The main legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of property fraud offenses under the IPC, the significance of misrepresentation and use of forged documents, and the necessity for custodial interrogation in uncovering potential conspiracies.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present bail application is preferred by the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest in case FIR No.672/2015 registered at Police Station – Jyoti Nagar, New Delhi, under Section 420/406/467/468/471/477-A/20-B IPC, wherein the applicant is one of the four accused.

2. Here itself I may observe that accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned ASJ, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts. However, the petitioner has been denied the said protection.

3. The said FIR came to be registered on the complaint of one Sh. Vikas Bhardwaj. The case of the complainant/prosecution is that on the proposal of one Devender Sharma – in association with three other accused persons, he consented to purchase property bearing No.A-37, Kailash Nagar Colony, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. He issued four cheques – two from his own account and two from the account of his brother Akash Bhardwaj in the name of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. Two of these cheques were encashed in the account of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd., while the other two were returned against payment in cash. The complainant produced one receipt in respect of the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs paid in cash, issued by the petitioner accused Anuradha Chaudhary. In respect of the other returned cheque, the complainant claims that he handed over Rs.20 Lakhs in cash to Devender Sharma, against which no receipt was issued.

4. The complainant also claimed that he transferred his flat admeasuring 105 square yards situated on 3rd Floor of Building No.66, Gali No.8, Balbir Nagar Extension, Shahdara, valued at Rs.50 Lakhs, as part consideration for purchase of property bearing No.A-37, Kailash Nagar Colony, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. The total consideration for the said plot was Rs.1 Crore 30 Lakhs. The complainant claims in his complaint that the petitioner accused Smt. Anuradha Chaudhary executed the sale deed dated 03.04.2014 in association with the other accused in respect of A-37, Kailash Nagar Colony, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi, wherein the sale consideration disclosed was Rs.40 Lakhs. The petitioner represented that she is the owner of the said property and that the property was her self-acquired property without any other claim over the same. The accused also sought to produce a resolution of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd., purportedly resolving to sell the said property and authorizing the petitioner to sell the same on behalf of the company. The petitioner was purportedly shown as a director of the said company. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant had no authority to sell the said property on behalf of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. and that she was not even a director of the said company.

5. The anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court on 28.07.2016. The submission of the petitioner that she is a woman; that the dispute raised was civil in nature; and that the appointment of the petitioner as a Director of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. was not communicated to the Registrar of Companies on account of inter-se dispute between shareholders/directors of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd., were rejected by the learned ASJ. The fact that the other accused have also been granted anticipatory bail was not considered as a relevant fact qua the case of the petitioner. It was argued on behalf of the State, as well as the complainant, that there was a stay order operating since 2006 against alienation of the said property granted by the Delhi High Court– to the knowledge of the petitioner accused, yet the complainant was persuaded to purchase the said property from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was never appointed as a Director of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. and yet she claimed herself to be a Director while executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant on 03.04.2014.

6. The learned ASJ also too