Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Vinay Kumar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| 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
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
