Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
Paramjit Singh - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 51 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Forgery - Bail Application - Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - [Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC] - The court discussed the allegations of forgery of documents, recovery of the substantial sum paid by the complainant, and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence. The court cited the Supreme Court's observation in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. regarding the limited scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation and the gravity of the allegations. The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in relation to a case involving allegations of forgery of documents and financial transactions related to the sale of a property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations were grave, the substantial sum paid by the complainant was yet to be recovered, and there was a possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence. As a result, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues: The issues involved the gravity of the allegations, recovery of the substantial sum paid, and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the allegations, the recovery of the substantial sum paid, and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence, as well as the limited scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Through Video Conferencing:
CRL. M.A. 176/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 51/2021
1. The instant application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.306 dated 19.08.2020, registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for offences Under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
2. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested by the police in the said FIR and hence this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.
3. The allegation in the FIR is that the complainant, one Mr. Sanjay Syal, was looking for an accommodation which would be suitable to meet needs of his specially abled girl child. It is stated in the FIR that the complainant approached one Mr. Anil Seth who was known to his neighbour and is running a business of property dealing in South Delhi. It is stated that Mr. Anil Seth introduced him to one Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, another property broker. The said Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma mentioned about the sale of a property bearing No. 50 at Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter called as 'the property'), owned by one Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon staying at Canada. Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma assured the complainant that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon had executed a Power of Attorney in the name of his brother-in-law, Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhillon, for the purpose of sale of the property and had authorised him to enter into Agreement to Sell the said property and to receive consideration for the same. It is stated that Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma introduced the complainant to Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sandhu, the petitioner herein, his son Mr. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Mr. Jaswer Grewal, stating that all of them know Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon and they have got family relations with each other. It is stated that all the above named persons assured the complainant that they would help him in getting a very good deal in respect of the sale of the abovementioned property. It is stated in the FIR that on believing the representations of Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sandhu, the petitioner herein, his son Mr. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Mr. Jaswer Grewal the complainant agreed to negotiate for the purchase of the said property. It is stated in the FIR that the complainant inspected the property and he was satisfied with the property. It is also stated that Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon assured him that he is the Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon vide power of attorney dated 21.11.2018, a copy of the same was also handed over to him. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.5,25,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty Five Lakhs only). An Agreement to Sell was entered into between the complainant and Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon being the Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon who is the owner of the property. It is stated in the FIR that out of total consideration of Rs.5,25,00,000/- the complainant has paid Rs.84,50,000/- (Rs. 82,50,000/- through RTGS/DD/Cheque and Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash) for purchasing the aforesaid property. It is also stated in the FIR that the complainant requested Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon to furnish the contact details of the owner of the property Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon for ensuring the receipt of the part payment of the property and to expedite the execution of Sale Deed and handing over of possession of the aforesaid property. It is stated that Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon provided an e-mail ID being jagdevsinghdhillon583@gmail.com and he was assured that the said e-mail ID belongs to Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon. It is stated that in the e-mail sent to Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon the complainant asked him to confirm whether he has received the first installment paid towards part payment for sale of the property. It is stated in the FIR that on 06.02.2019, a reply was received through e-mail ID jagdevsinghdhillon583@gmail.com acknowledging
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
