The court holds that a legitimate pre-trial settlement can influence bail considerations, emphasizing that the accused may receive bail contingent upon compliance with conditions related to investigation and court appearances.

JUDGMENT

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 229/2013 registered under Sections 420 /467/468/471/34 IPC at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the pendency of the regular bail proceedings before the Court below, a settlement was arrived at with the complainant, wherefore a sum of Rs.23 lacs was paid to him by the applicant. He also submitted that the applicant has already joined the investigation.

3. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the applicant, along with his brother, i.e. accused/Deepak Goel, is part of a gang which indulged in preparation of forged documents with the sole intention to cheat people. It was contended that the accused had arrived at a Settlement with the complainant, pursuant to which the applicant paid Rs.23 lacs to him. However, subsequently during the investigation, his detailed role surfaced and it was found that the complainant was cheated to the tune of Rs.30 Crores.

4. Learned APP also submitted that it has been alleged in the complaint that during the sale transaction pertaining to property bearing House No. 32/103, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, accused/Deepak Goel had made the complainant speak to a person who identified himself as Amit Goel and assured him regarding the ownership of the property by Deepak Goyal. The applicant further told the complainant that by virtue of a partnership deed, the property had been divided between the brothers and while the 1st and 2nd floors had come to the share of the applicant, the ground and 3rd floors with roof right were with Deepak Goel. The applicant had also claimed to be in possession of the original partnership deed and assured that the title of the property sought to be sold by accused/Deepak Goyal was clear.

It was also submitted that the present applicant was a co-applicant with Deepak Goel in availing loan from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, New Rohtak Road and at that time, i.e., prior to the sale transaction with the complainant, the property documents along with the partition deed with respect to the aforesaid property were mortgaged. Further, cheated amount to the tune of Rs.23 lacs was stated to have come into the personal account of the applicant. It was also urged that though the applicant has joined investigation, he has not cooperated in the same, inasmuch as the aforesaid partnership deeds used by the applicant are yet to be seized.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant additionally submitted that in order for the Court to entertain the present bail application, the applicant ought to have surrendered first. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported as (2014) 16 SCC 623.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

7. The present FIR was registered on 07.05.2013 on the basis of a complaint filed by one Baldev Sapra at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi against the applicant's brother/Deepak Goyal and others, including the applicant. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, it was alleged that accused/Deepak Goyal had made the complainant speak with him over phone, and the applicant had stated that the property bearing House No. 32/103, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi was divided between the two brothers, i.e. accused