IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Vinay Kumar Jaiswal - Appellant
Versus
NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1135 of 2021
Decided On : 05-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud in property sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding the role and intent of the petitioner. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court’s observations on misrepresentation and fraud. (Para 9 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. denial of bail; need for custodial interrogation. (Para 16) |
| 5. non-expressive opinion on case merits. (Para 17) |
ORDER
(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 326/2019, under Section 420 /468/471/120B/34 IPC registered at P.S. Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the direction of Ld. CMM/KKD, Delhi pursuant to the enquiry conducted U/S 156(3) Cr.PC. on the complaint of Sukhpal S/o Sh. Kare R/o 12/620, GF, Friends Society Sec-12, Vasundhra, Gaziabad, UP.
3. Complainant Sukhpal Singh alleged that accused persons namely R D Verma and Mukesh Kr. Gupta contacted him and told that they want to purchase his property i.e. 12/620, Ground Floor, Friends Society, Sec-12, Vashundhra Ghaziabad, UP. After negotiations the deal was finalized and on 03/08/2017 both the said accused paid Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant as an advance and prepared a sale agreement for a total consideration of Rs. 67 lacs. Later Mukesh Gupta informed the complainant that loan has been sanctioned from ICICI bank in the name of his relative namely Venkat Narsimha Rao.
4. On 20.03.2018, complainant with his son visited tehsil complex situated at Ghaziabad U.P. and executed Sale Deed in favour of Mr. Venkat Narsimha Rao. One person who introduced himself as the employee of ICICI Bank handed over a Demand Draft of Rs. 66 lacs to the complainant. All original previous title deeds were handed over by complainant to Mr. R.D. Verma. But the registry could not be done on that day. Accused RD Verma assured the complainant that an employee of Sub-Registrar office Ghaziabad, UP would come at his home to get the formalities done. On the next day i.e. on 21.03.2018, aforesaid Mr.R.D. Verma, Mr. Abhishek and their one accomplice (stated to be a staff of office of Sub-registrar of properties) had come to complainant house. The said accomplice had completed the formalities and as everything was apparently confirmed to be genuine execution of sale deed, hence complainant handed over the key of the subject property to Mr. R.D. Verma.
5. It is alleged by the complainant that in the evening he confirmed from accused R.D. Verma about status of registry of subject property, Mr. R.D. Verma confirmed that sale deed is duly executed and hence, complainant deposited the bank draft of Rs. 66.00 Lakh in his account on 22.03.2018 which was duly cleared in the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter complainant demanded a copy of registered sale deed for his record from accused Mr. R.D. Verma but he avoided the same on one pretext or the other.
6. Later, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that his LPG subsidy is being credited in account no 026810400122535 with IDBI Vivek Vihar branch Delhi instead of his account with State Bank of India, branch at Vasundhara, Gaziabad, UP. Later on enquiry with the staff of IDBI Bank, Vivek Vihar branch he came to know that one bank account number 026810400122535 was opened in December 2017 with IDBI Bank, Vivek Vihar, whereas complainant never visited the said branch nor have anything to do in any manner with the said branch of IDBI Bank. Later it also came to knowledge of the complainant on 15.07.2018 that there were three different and separate sale deed(s) of subject property which were executed by someone in the name of complainant in favour of three different persons.
7. During course of investigation, the certified copies of Registry of property in question i.e. 12/620, GF, Friends Society Sec-12, Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, UP was extracted from the Sub-Registrar office. On perusal of the same three following regist
Anticipatory bail is not granted where substantial evidence suggests active participation in fraud and multiple offenses, warranting custodial interrogation.
The court may grant bail if continued custody does not serve justice, especially in cases where evidence is predominantly documentary and recovery of items is not imminent.
The court denied anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of cheating allegations, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to investigate potential conspiratorial conduct.
Anticipatory Bail – Cheating and fraud - Allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature – No clean past antecedents - Custodial interrogation required to recover cheated amount - ....
Point of Law : Cases of similar in nature were pending - Bail granted - Pendency of other cases of similar nature by itself is no ground to refuse the bail to the accused.
The court considered the period of incarceration and the nature of the charged offenses in granting bail to the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.