IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Nitin @ Sunil Daral - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2292 of 2021 & Crl.M.(Bail). 887 of 2021
Decided On : 30-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observations on evidence and assessment of custody. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. arguments on civil nature and alleged misuse of police. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. bail granted despite multiple pending cases. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion and order on bail application. (Para 15) |
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 301/2020 under Section 420 /448/406/467/468/471/34/120B IPC registered at P.S. Laxmi Nagar, District East.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Vishal Bhutani had filed a complaint against Manjeet Singh, Sunil Daral (present petitioner) and Manisha Daral W/o Sunil Daral all R/o F-193, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi for forgery, cheating, trespassing and house breaking and other penal offences at PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, wherein complainant had stated that he is the owner of the property bearing No. F-193/551, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (measuring 350 Sq. Yds.) and he purchased the same from Smt. Shilpi Gupta W/o Ram Mohan Gupta and Sh. Ram Mohan Gupta S/o Late Shri Gian Chand Gupta vide sale deed duly registered vide Regd. No. 3125, Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 1049, pages 169 to 178, dated 29.06.2017 and Regd. No, 5004, Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 879, pages 41 to 50, dated 26.06.2017 respectively, (measuring 175 Sq, Yds.). The complainant had constructed four floors along with stilt parking at the aforesaid plot from his own resources then he entered into the agreement to sell and purchase with the alleged Smt. Manisha Daral W/o Sunil Daral (petitioner herein) R/o F-9, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with regard to the 3rd floor of the above said property and executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Manish Daral for the 3rd floor of the aforesaid property vide Reg. No. 1867, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 1252, on page 16 to 26, dated 28.03.2018, Sub Registrar VIIIA and received a total sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/-. Later on, he entered into the agreement to sell and purchase with the alleged Smt. Manisha Daral w/o Sunil Daral (present petitioner) R/o F-9, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with regard to the 2nd floor of the above said property and executed the sale deed of 2nd floor in favour of Smt. Manish Daral vide Reg. No. 4476, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 1353, on Page 97 to 107, dated 28.07.2018, Sub Registrar VIIIA and received a total sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. It was further submitted by the complainant that at the time of selling of aforesaid 2nd and 3rd Floor of the said property, some construction work was yet to be completed but the alleged persons pressurized him to execute the sale deed and further asked they would execute an another agreement in favour of the complainant for the completion of renovation work and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,00,000/-. In this regard, an indemnity & declaration was executed by accused Manisha Daral and her husband Sunil Daral (present petitioner) in favour of the complainant, wherein it was mentioned that 84 Lacs was already paid to the complainant whereas six postdated cheques against the payment of remaining Rs.62 Lacs were issued by the accused persons. It is further submitted by the complainant that he had already sold out the upper ground floor to some other person and the 1st floor of the building was vacant and he installed his locks on the first floor.
3. He further stated that on completion of renovation work much before the due date, he handed over the possession of 2nd & 3rd Floor to the accused persons but when the said cheques were presented in bank on their due date, the same were dishonoured by the bank due to the reason of stop payment and therefore, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the accused persons. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 03.08.2019, he received a notice from the Court of Smt. Such
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.
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.
Anticipatory bail is not granted where substantial evidence suggests active participation in fraud and multiple offenses, warranting custodial interrogation.
Bail should not be cancelled without supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial.
Bail already granted can only be canceled on evidence of supervening circumstances necessitating fair trial integrity, emphasizing the significant distinction from initial bail rejection criteria.
The court considered the period of incarceration and the nature of the charged offenses in granting bail to the petitioner.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening must satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The ....
High Court can quash FIRs in settled disputes even for serious offenses if continuation serves no purpose and leads to abuse of legal process.
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.