The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of anticipatory bail is not warranted when the accused persons are alleged to have cheated multiple parties and have a modus operandi to deceive people.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.(Oral)

CRL.M.A. 21968-69/2023 in BAIL APPLN. 2719/2023

CRL.M.A. 21970-71/2023 in BAIL APPLN. 2720/2023

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stand disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 2719/2023 & BAIL APPLN. 2720/2023

3. The instant applications under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') have been filed on behalf of applicants seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR bearing no. 106/2018, registered at Police Station Dabri (Dwarka), South West Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

4. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant alleging that he had purchased property bearing Flat no. 101, First Floor, K-14, Khasra no. 82/83, Nanda Block, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi from accused Babita Arya through registered sale deed for a sum of Rs.20 lacs, however, he was compelled to pay an amount of Rs.33 lacs. The complainant had been forced to take a loan of Rs.17 lacs from Central Bank of India and rest of the amount was paid in cash against cash receipt signed by accused Mahavir Arya. Later on, complainant had come to know that the said property had been sold by Babita Arya to one Sunil Gupta and Gian Chand Aggarwal vide sale deed dated 13.08.2014.

6. During investigation, it was revealed that Sunil Gupta and Gian Chand Aggarwal had already filed complaint against the present accused persons with respect to the property in question and another case regarding the same property in question for cheating and forgery is pending against the present accused persons vide FIR no. 500/2017 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant states that though he had undertaken to deposit a further sum of Rs.10 lacs before this Court and had been granted interim protection on that ground alone, he is not willing to make the payment any more. He admits that he had withdrawn the anticipatory bail application on the last date of hearing as the applicants did not want to deposit the money as per assurance given in the Court in the year 2019 and thereafter. He states that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 766, this Court cannot impose any condition for depositing any amount and therefore now without depositing any money, he is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. He states that the new circumstance in his favour, after withdrawing the anticipatory bail application on 04.07.2023, is the judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) and therefore, anticipatory bail be granted to the accused persons.

8. Per contra, learned APP for the State argues that the applicants had themselves submitted before the Court that without prejudice to their rights, a sum of Rs.10 lacs will be deposited before the learned Trial Court on 16.01.2019. In this regard, about Rs.9 lacs already stand deposited before the learned Trial Court in favour of the complainant. It is stated that on 14.05.2019, the applicants had joined investigation only on one occasion on the direction of this Court's order dated 08.05.2019. It is stated by learned APP for the State that the applicant Babita Arya had admitted that she had sold the property in question to the complainant as well as to one Gian Chand Aggarwal and Sunil Gupta. It is stated that the applicants have not joined investigation and Mahavir Arya and Babita Arya are blaming each other for the alleged offence.

9. This Court has heard arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and has gone through the case file. This Court has also gone through the previous ordersheets of the learned Trial Court as well as this Court.

10. This Court notes that the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts