The court may grant bail considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of witness tampering, and evidence available, balancing personal liberty and public interest.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.328/2019 dated 05.11.2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under:

a) The instant FIR was registered on the complaint given by one Ravinder Kler (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). The complaint was received in the Special Investigation Unit-I, Crime Branch, Delhi. It is stated that the complainant is a Doctor by profession practicing in Delhi. It is stated that the complainant met one Vinod Thapa (accused No.1) in a social gathering wherein Vinod Thapa introduced himself as a property dealer who had been in the business since several years and was handling high profile clientele. It is stated that Vinod Thapa represented that a plot of land, located at a prime area in Dehradun, was available at a very low and attractive price. It is stated that Vinod Thapa represented to the complainant that he knew the owner of the said plot who is willing to sell the plot and he offered the complainant to purchase the same. It is stated that Vinod Thapa persuaded the complainant by stating that the land is being sold at a very low price and that the complainant would be able to sell the plot at a very high price. It is further stated that Vinod Thapa told the complainant that he already knew people who would buy the plot at higher prices. It is stated that Vinod Thapa introduced prospective buyers to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant was reluctant to go ahead with the deal but Vinod Thapa offered to make 50% investment in the said property. It is further stated that Vinod Thapa told the complainant that the Agreements would be entered into with the sellers on payment of initial amounts (i.e. 10-20% of the purchase price) and he would ensure that before the dates, when final payments have to be made, he would get onward sale agreements executed for higher prices to ensure a quick gain on the amount invested and also to ensure that the complainant would not have to pay the full amount to the seller. It is stated that for this purpose, Vinod Thapa introduced the complainant to one Rajan Sharma (Accused No.4) who claimed to be working in the same real estate company, acting as broker for various high-profile politicians and businessmen. It is further stated in the complaint that Vinod Thapa told the complainant that he would not be able to enter into such agreements in his own name and for that purpose he proposed to invest his share (i.e 50%) of the total investment through one Mr. O. P. Joshi, who was stated to be his old-time confidant. It is stated that Vinod Thapa introduced the said Mr. Joshi to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant along with Mr. Joshi went to Dehradun on 08.02.2018, wherein he met the petitioner herein who represented to be a businessman having various mineral water plants apart from being engaged in agricultural activities in the various parcel of lands which he owned in Dehradun, including a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 29, 23 and 14 admeasuring 16 bighas, located in Bakarna, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, which he was interested to sell. It is stated that the petitioner herein and Mr. Joshi took the complainant to the site. It is further stated that on 09.02.2018, Vinod Thapa called the complainant and Mr. Joshi to the office of the Registrar in Dehradun where he wanted to execute the Agreement for the said deal. It is stated that Vinod Thapa introduced the complainant to one Pra