IMPORTANT POINT
The court considered the period of incarceration and the nature of the charged offenses in granting bail to the petitioner.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 68/2021 under Sections 420/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South, District South-West, New Delhi.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant gave a written complaint on 13.02.2021 wherein she had asserted that she is a 70 years old widow and has been cheated to the tune of Rs.1.59 Crores by the property agent namely Arvind Kumar (petitioner herein) on the pretext of selling house in Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

3. It has been alleged by the complainant that her daughter-in-law availed services of 'Urban Clap' for salon at home and for the said services, Mrs. Babli Tomar visited her house on 11.03.2019. She further alleged that said Babli Tomar told her that her husband Arvind Kumar (present petitioner) is a property dealer and he can get her best deals of property in Delhi. On the representation of Babli, the complainant contacted the petitioner Arvind Kumar. The complainant was interested in purchase of an immovable property. Accordingly, the petitioner Arvind Kumar showed her few houses in Dwarka New Delhi and finally a house No. B-005, Ground Floor, Paragjyotishpur Apartment, Plot No.7, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi was selected by the complainant for its purchase.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that petitioner told her that the said property belongs to one NRI Mrs. Parminder Kaur, residing in USA. She alleged that the petitioner told him that he is looking after all the properties of Parminder Kaur in Delhi and the deal of the said property can only be materialized through him. The complainant further alleged in her complaint that on the said representation of the petitioner, from April, 2019 to November, 2019, she paid Rs.52.47 lacs through cheque from her account, Rs.48.256 lacs from the account of her son Sh. Kanwal Pal Singh and Rs.58.274 lacs in cash to the petitioner towards sale consideration of the said property.

5. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner kept on avoiding execution of registered documents of the said property in her favour on one pretext or another. Eventually, the petitioner told the complainant that the owner of the said property has cancelled the deal and out of total sum of Rs.1.59 Crores, she would get back only Rs.70 lacs as the remaining payment was submitted to the Registrar, DDA, BSES, Electricity and Jal Board office. The complainant further alleged that petitioner did not give any proof of the said payment to the said departments and promised to pay said Rs.70 lacs by the mid of December, 2019. But subsequently, he failed to pay even the said amount. The complainant alleged that she has been dishonestly and fraudulently induced by the petitioner to deliver Rs.1.59 Crores to him on the pretext of sale of the said property and petitioner and co-accused Babli cheated her for the said amount.

6. I have heard the Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant, perused the status report and also perused the records of this case.

7. It is submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in J.C. since 18.08.2021 for the offences in which maximum punishment is 7 years. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed, so all the evidence is in the possession of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner Arvind Kumar is a financer/money lender and is in no way connected with the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant. It is further submitted that the alleged offence was committed in the year 2019 but the FIR was registered in the year 2021 and there is no explanation to this delay in lodging the present FIR.

8. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the son of the complainant and his wife had approach