Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Vinod Kumar Thapa - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. No. 640/2021
Decided On : 11-10-2021
Bail - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B - The court discussed the nature and gravity of the offences, possibility of tampering with evidence, likelihood of fleeing the due process of law, and the conduct of the accused. The court also considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi. The accused was granted bail on stringent conditions due to the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a property dealer, is accused of conspiring to cheat a doctor by inducing him to invest in lands in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. The petitioner introduced the complainant to purported owners and brokers, facilitated agreements, and received token payments from the complainant, which were transferred to the petitioner's bank account. The investigating agency found evidence of fraudulent transactions and impersonation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had hatched a well-planned criminal conspiracy to defraud the complainant. The court considered the nature of the accusations, the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the conduct of the accused in granting bail on stringent conditions.
Issues: The primary issues were the nature and severity of the offences, possibility of tampering with evidence, likelihood of fleeing the due process of law, and the conduct of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year. The court also considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi.
Final Decision: The accused was granted bail on stringent conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, residing at a specified address, reporting to the police station, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.328/2019 dated 05.11.2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.
2. The facts, in brief, pertaining to the case, as described in the FIR, are that the Petitioner and the Complainant, Ravinder Kler, a doctor, met at a party in New Delhi in 2017 where the petitioner introduced himself as a property dealer with a long list of eminent clientele. It is stated that the petitioner and the complainant were in touch thereafter and the Petitioner told him about lands available for sale at attractive prices in Dehradun, Uttarakhand and that he knew some owners personally and that he could purchase the lands by paying 20% of the purchase price. It is stated that after initial reluctance, the Complainant went to Uttarakhand along with the petitioner to see the plots. During the visit, the Petitioner introduced the Complainant to one Prashant Thapa, as the Clerk of Patwari from the Land Registration office, who confirmed the position represented by the Petitioner that the prices of lands were low as per the circle rate and promised to extend his co-operation in the registration process. The Complainant through the Petitioner met accused Rajan Sharma who was shown as a colleague of the Petitioner and as a broker to many high-profile politicians and businessmen. The Complainant was made to meet accused Mohd. Zaidi who was shown as working in the same company with the Petitioner and it was told to the complainant that he would help him in selling the plots which the Complainant was about to purchase. The Petitioner convinced the complainant to purchase the farm lands in Dehradun, and when the complainant was diffident about the same the Petitioner proposed that he would also invest 50% of the price through his confidant, one Mr. O.P. Joshi. Over the next few visits to Dehradun, the Petitioner arranged meetings for the complainant with purported owners of fields of land. It is stated that the Complainant in partnership with the Petitioner agreed to invest in properties on the assurance that high yielding returns would enure to the Complainant when the plots will resold. The FIR thereafter mentions that total six agreements were entered into by the Complainant, with co-accused Sudarshan Singh Aswal, Dinesh Chand Ramola, Ashbal Ali, and Bibi Rihanna. The Petitioner invested in one of the six agreements jointly with the Complainant, in rest of the agreements the complainant alone entered with other accused persons. For the sake of clarity the agreements entered into by the Complainant are mentioned below:-
(i) Agreement No.1 was entered into between accused Sudarshan Singh Aswal and Complainant along with Om Prakash Joshi on 09.02.2018 for land admeasuring 16 bighas situated at Bakarna, Dehradun for a sum total of Rs. 2,00,16,000/- (Two Crores and sixteen thousand rupees.) At the time of signing the Agreement a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by the Complainant to Sudarshan Singh Aswal as advance token payment.
(ii) Agreement No. 2 was entered into between Sudarshan Singh Aswal and Complainant on 20.2.2018 for land admeasuring 22 bighas situated at Pargana, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun for a sum total of Rs. 2,97,22,000/-(Two Crores ninety-seven lakh and twenty two thousand rupees). At the time of signing the Agreement a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid by the Complainant as advance token payment.
(iii) Agreement No.3 was entered into between accused Dinesh Chandra Ramola and Complainant on 12.3.2018 for land admeasuring 30 bighas located at Mauja Gram, Dhalani, Dehradun for a sum total of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- (Two Crores twenty-five lakh rupees). At the time of signing of the Agreement the Complainant paid Rs. 25,00,000/- as advance token payment.
(iv) Agreement No.4 was entered into between accused Asbhal Ali and Complainant on 12.3.2018 for la
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year, in line with the principles laid down by ....
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
Bail can be granted under stringent conditions, even for serious economic offenses, once investigations are complete and there's no necessity for further custody.
Point of law : Fact as to whether the petitioner can be convicted for an offence under Section 467 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC will be decided only at the time of trial, after evidence is le....
The seriousness of the offences, the accused's active involvement, and the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence if released are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The main legal point established is the court's discretion in granting bail, considering the severity of the accusation, the petitioner's behavior, and the need to prevent indefinite custody, while e....
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
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 ....
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
