Point of Law : Legal position set out in the decision referred to hereinabove, the instances of forgery committed by the applicant, not only in the transactions entered with the complainant but also with various banks/financial institutions which are stated to have filed their complaints as well, and his propensity to commit an offence of similar nature in future, besides the risk of his fleeing from justice.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 229/2013 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC at Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

2. Mr. Sanjay Hedge, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant. It was submitted that the applicant has been in custody for a total of about 41 months and the charge sheet having been filed, he is no longer required for any investigation. It was further submitted that the charge sheet in the case was initially filed in the year 2013, whereafter two supplementary charge sheets have been filed but till date, charge has not been framed.

3. On merits, it was stated that the applicant came in contact with the complainant through one common friend and co-accused, namely Dharmender Yadav. As per the prosecution case, the applicant has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.30 crores. During the pendency of bail proceedings before the Sessions Court, the applicant entered into a settlement on 20.07.2013, in pursuance of which, although the entire settled amount was not paid, a land worth Rs.8 crores was transferred to the complainant. Subsequently, on 25.02.2014, another settlement was arrived at with the complainant, which again did not fructify. The applicant, however, paid an amount of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant. Soon after, a third settlement was entered into between the parties on 10.12.2014, terms of which were again not fulfilled, though the applicant paid a sum of Rs.1.21 crores. In total, the applicant is stated to have paid Rs.3.90 crores to the complainant.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the case relates to the offences of cheating and forgery, and as such, the present criminal proceedings cannot become a mode of recovery. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported as (2021) 2 SCC 779. It was prayed that considering the fact that the applicant has been in custody for about 3.5 years and yet charge has not been framed, the further fact that 8-9 co-accused persons remain to be arrested, and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future, the applicant may be released on bail.

5. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the applicant had entered into a total of 8 property transactions with the complainant, out of which 5 are in Delhi and the remaining 3 are in Rajasthan. It was further submitted that initially the complaint was filed only with respect to cheating and forgery qua some of the properties, however during investigation, it has come on record that the applicant, in connivance with the co-accused persons, has cheated and defrauded the complainant to the tune of Rs.30 crores in relation to all the property transactions. It has also come on record that the properties in Delhi were sold to the complainant without disclosing that the same were mortgaged with multiple banks, which have separately filed their complaints against the present applicant. Insofar as the transactions with respect to the properties situated in Rajasthan are concerned, it was submitted that either the petitioner was not the owner of the immoveable properties or he impersonated as the original owner. It was further stated that with the sole intention to cheat and defraud the complainant, banks and various other persons, the applicant also committed the act of forgery, inasmuch as he prepared forged stamps, forged E-stamps and utilized them for the purpose of forging sale deeds, lease deeds, conveyance deeds, possession letters of DDA, possession hand over letters issued by the DDA etc.

6. It was also subm