Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Ajay Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3174 of 2022 & Cr.M.(BAIL) 1303 of 2022 (Interim Bail)
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State with SI Sohan Thakur, PS: Jyoti Nagar.
Mr. Viraj Datar, Senior Advocate With Mr. Shalabh Gupta, Ms. Himani Aggarwal, Mr. Gagan, Mr. Saurav Joon, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The grant of bail should consider the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the absence of allegations regarding tampering with evidence. Imprisonment before conviction should not be used as a mark of disapproval of former conduct.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC 420/467/468/471/448/120B - Sections 439 CrPC - [FRAUDULENT SALE OF LAND] - [IPC 420/467/468/471/448/120B] - The court discussed the provisions of IPC 420/467/468/471/448/120B and their interpretation in relation to the fraudulent sale of land. The court highlighted the elements of forgery and cheating under these sections and their application to the case. The court also considered the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment in determining the bail application.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving fraudulent sale of land under IPC Sections 420/467/468/471/448/120B. The applicant was accused of executing a sale deed for a plot of land owned by the complainant company, without authorization. The dispute between the applicant and the complainant company had been ongoing since 2006/2007, and chargesheets were filed in previous FIRs without arrest. The applicant had been in judicial custody since 01.09.2022.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation against the applicant was complete, and any further investigation could not be a sufficient ground for continued detention. The court considered the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment in determining the bail application. The court also emphasized that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and should not be used as a mark of disapproval of former conduct.
Issues: The issues involved the fraudulent sale of land, the ongoing dispute between the applicant and the complainant company, and the determination of bail based on the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of the investigation, the absence of allegations regarding tampering with evidence, and the consideration of the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment. The court also emphasized that imprisonment before conviction should not be used as a mark of disapproval of former conduct.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and admitted the applicant to bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma J.

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 408/2022 dated 30.05.2022, under Sections 420/467/468/471/448/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), registered at PS Jyoti Nagar.

2. By three separate judgments of the same date, this Court has disposed of three other bail applications filed on behalf of the applicant, being BAIL APPLN. 3175/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 585/2022, BAIL APPLN. 3176/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 557/2022, and BAIL APPLN. 3177/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 584/2022. The said FIRs have been registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/448/120B of the IPC, at PS Jyoti Nagar. The said FIRs are based on similar set of allegations with respect to the present applicant, except for the fact that they relate to distinct plots of land. It is pertinent to note that that except for the present FIR No. 408/2022, all the FIRs have been registered at the instance of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'CLB'). The present FIR No. 408/2022 has been registered at the instance of M/s Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of CLB.

3. The present FIR has been registered at the instance M/s Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `complainant company'), through its authorized representative, Shri Manoj Bansal. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the registration of the present FIR are as under:

(i) CLB is stated to have been incorporated in the year 1959 with a total share capital of 15 shares, by Smt. Satya Chowdhary with 10 shares and Sh. Kishor Lal Sachdeva with 5 shares. In the year 1960, Smt. Satya Chowdhary transferred 5 of her shares to Sh. Kishor Lal Sachdeva and 40 new shares were allotted to him as well. In the year 1962, 500 shares issued by CLB were allotted to one Late Sh. Chowdhary Brahma Prakash, who in 1963, transferred the said shares to the Shaheed Memorial Society (hereinafter referred to as the `Society'), of which he was the President. In 1967, 45 shares were transferred to M/s Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd. by Sh. Kishor Lal Sachdeva. It is the case of the complainant company that between 1968 to 1989, the Society sold all of its shares to various persons and thus, ceased to be a shareholder.

(ii) It is the case of the complainant company that on 10.03.2006, acting through its President, Sh. Ajay Chowdhary, the Society convened an extra-ordinary general meeting of CLB and fraudulently removed Sh. Om Prakash Sachdeva, Sh. Ankur Sachdeva and Smt. Promila Kishore as Directors and appointed Sh. Ajay Yadav (applicant herein), Sh. Arjun Chowdhary, Sh. Surender Pal and Sh. Abdul Haq Farhan as Directors.

(iii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, CLB, acting through its authorized representative, filed a civil suit before this court, bearing number C.S.(OS) 1906/2006, titled M/s Capital Land Builders and Ors. v. Shaheed Memorial Trust and Ors. During the course of proceedings in the said civil suit, on an application filed by the plaintiffs therein under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC'), this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2006, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction and restrained the defendants therein, which also included the present applicant, from representing themselves as shareholders/representatives of the plaintiff therein, i.e., CLB. The said injunction was vacated by an order of this Court dated 06.08.2009. Thereafter, in an appeal filed against the order dated 06.08.2009, in FAO(OS) 337/2009, a Division Bench of this court, vide order dated 06.11.2009, set aside the order dated 06.08.2009, thereby restraining the applicant and others from holding themselves out as shareholders and Directors of the complainant company during pendency of the suit. A Special Lea