The court's decision emphasized the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case when granting bail, taking into account the nature of the offense, character of the evidence, and other relevant factors.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 63/2019 under Sections 420/468/471/201/506/174A/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pashim Vihar, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, in the month of January 2018, came in contact with the petitioner through one Mr. Mahesh Sharma as he wanted to purchase a flat in Punjabi Bagh Apartments. Upon this, the petitioner offered him to sell a flat No. 162, Punjabi Bagh Apartments, claiming that the said flat was allotted to one Channi Ram who is a resident of Rajasthan and in order to show his bona- fides, petitioner showed the complainant, a letter issued by DDA whereby the said flat was allotted to Channi Ram and also the Agreement to Sell executed by said Chhani Ram in favour of the petitioner qua the said flat. Thereafter, deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-(one Crore Fifty Lakhs) and a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was paid to the Rakesh Madan @ Rakesh Arora and his wife (Asha Madan @ Dolly @ Asha Arora i.e. petitioner herein) as part payment. Later on, Rs. 50,00,000/- were paid to Rakesh Madan@ Rakesh Arora and further Rs.15,00,000/- were transferred in the bank account of the Smt. Asha Madan (petitioner herein) and also a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- were transferred in the joint bank account of the Rakesh Madan @ Rakesh Arora and his wife (Asha Madan @ Dolly@ Asha Arora i.e.petitioner herein) and the balance amount was paid in cash. It is further alleged that in order to show his bona-fides, husband of the petitioner i.e. Rakesh Madan@ Rakesh Arora showed him challan, according to which money was deposited with DDA on behalf of said Chhani Ram for the payment of the said flat. The complainant further stated that after taking Rs.80,00,000/- both the accused started avoiding the complainant and when the complainant visited at the office and residence of the accused persons, he came to know that both the accused are absconding. Thereafter, on 11.02.2019, FIRNo.63/2019 under Sections 420/468/471/201/506/174A/34 IPC was registered at Police Station PaschimVihar West, Delhi and the investigation was taken up.

3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, perused the Status Report filed by the State and also perused the records of this case.

4. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated and has been made accused in the present case only to pressurize her husband, who is allegedly stated to be the main accused. It is also submitted that the applicant is an old aged lady having severe health issues. It is further submitted that no role or involvement is attributed to the applicant and she is judicial custody since 22.03.2021 only because the applicant is the holder of joint bank account in which part of the alleged cheated amount is stated to be deposited. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been filed and the applicant is not required for investigation purposes. It is further submitted that applicant has deep roots in the society and there are no allegations with regard to joining and cooperating in investigation or tampering with the evidence. Lastly, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.

5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab', (1980) 2 SCC 565 and 'Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and another', (2014) 8 SCC 273.

6. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has strongly opposed the bail application and has argued on the lines of the Status Report. It is submitted by the Ld. APP that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that when enquiries were made from DDA with regard to flat in question, it was found that said flat was not allotted to Chhani Ram.

It is further submitted that the alleged Agreement