IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Vishal Bhutani - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 1308 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for cancellation of bail based on alleged forgery and cheating (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments concerning the bail proceedings and lack of investigation review (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. principles governing bail cancellation and necessity of supervening circumstances (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. rejection of bail cancellation petition due to absence of supervening circumstances (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
CRL.M.C. 1308/2021 and CRL.M.A. 6719/2021 (stay)
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside/cancellation of order dated 17.04.2021 by which respondent no.2 i.e. Manjeet Singh was granted bail in case FIR no. 301/2020 u/s 420/448/406/467/468/471/34/120B IPC registered at P.S. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Vishal Bhutani had filed a complaint against Manjeet Singh (respondent no. 2 herein), Sunil Daral 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 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. 1,867, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 1,252, on page 16 to 26, dated 28.03.2018, Sub Registrar VIIIA and received a total sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/-. Lateron, he entered into the agreement to sell and purchase with the alleged Smt. Manisha Daral w/o Sunil Daral 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 the Smt. Manish Daral vide Reg. No. 4,476, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 1,353, 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 the accused Manisha Daral and her husband Sunil Daral in favour of the complainant, wherein it was mentioned that 84 Lacs was already paid to the complainant whereas Six Post Dated Cheques against the payment of remaining 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 the completion of renovation work was much before the due date and handed over the possession of 2nd& 3rd Floor to the accused persons but when the said cheques were present 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 b
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.
Bail should not be cancelled without supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial.
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.
The court ruled that bail, while generally granted as a norm, may be revoked if serious allegations of fraud and potential flight risk arise, reflecting substantive judicial scrutiny of bail orders.
The court emphasized that bail should be denied if the accused's conduct poses a risk to the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious offences and repeated criminal activity.
The court ruled that bail can be cancelled if the accused engages in further criminal conduct post-release, reflecting a disregard for the law.
An order granted based on fraudulent documents is null and void, allowing for its cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC.
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.