Anticipatory bail requires demonstrating that custodial interrogation is unnecessary; in this case, evidence supported the need for further investigation and interrogation of the applicant.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B - Anticipatory bail - Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case regarding cheating through property fraud - The Court found prima facie evidence of conspiracy among the accused to defraud the complainant. (Paras 1-9)

(B) The requirements for anticipatory bail - Must demonstrate no necessity for custodial interrogation - The court emphasized the need for interrogating the accused to uncover conspiracy and money trail. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged fraud in property transaction involving substantial cash payments and false representations regarding property ownership by the accused. The investigation revealed a suspicious chain of transactions and multiple sales of the same property.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the accused projected himself as a legitimate director and was implicated in the conspiracy, warranting further investigation.

Issues: The court addressed whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail considering the necessities of the investigation and potential links to the offences charged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the severe nature of allegations and the ongoing investigation necessitate custodial interrogation for effective inquiry into the alleged conspiracy.

Result: Bail application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the complaint and property fraud. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contentions of the prosecution and defence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's assessment of evidence and need for interrogation. (Para 6 , 7)
4. decision on anticipatory bail. (Para 8)
5. order dismissing bail application. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR bearing no. 208/2021, registered at Police Station (PS) Crime Branch, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/474/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that on the basis of a complaint filed by Mrs. Nutan Mishra, the present FIR was registered wherein she had alleged that in the year 2017, upon seeing some posters pasted in the area of Karawal Nagar in the name of M/s Aakash Yamuna Township & Developers and names of its Directors, she along with her husband had contacted Koshar Ali in his office who had projected himself as Director of M/s Aakash Yamuna Township & Developers. Koshar Ali informed them that it was a private limited and registered company and the land in question had been allotted for the township by the government which was purchased by him. He has also assured them that he was the absolute owner of the land bearing Plot No. 195-196, Khasra No. 60, measuring 500 sq. yards, situated at New Sabha Pur, New Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter he asked them to make cash payment and accordingly, they had paid Rs. 95,00,000/- in cash to one Madeena Khatun as Koshar Ali had told them that land in question was presently in the name of co-accused Madeena Khatun. Thereafter, the GPA was executed between the complainant Nutan Mishra and co-accused Madeena Khatun on 29.11.2017. Thereafter, on 16.11.2018, when the complainant had gone to visit the property in question, she found that the plot in question belonged to one Mr. Anil Giri. Mr. Anil Giri told her that this plot was purchased by him from one Ravinder Singh. Complainant thereafter informed that she had been cheated regarding the property in question and the case was registered in Crime Branch. During the course of investigation of the present case, the chain of documents of the property in question was obtained which revealed that the said property was initially allotted to one Hukum Singh by the government in 1989. All four sons of Hukum Singh had equal share in the property of their father. By way of GPA, one Mrs. Jagwati wife of Mr. Lalchand became owner of the property in question. On 10.06.2013, Mrs. Jagwati executed a GPA in favour of one Satbir Singh. On 15.01.2014, Mr. Satbir executed the GPA which was registered in Sub-Registrar office, Seelampur in favour of one Ravinder Singh. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency verified from the concerned Registrar office that the property in question had been sold by way of a registered GPA in favour of Mr. Ravinder Singh. On 10.04.2015, the property in question was sold by Mr. Ravinder Singh to one Mr. Jitender Mishra through un-registered GPA. On 10.07.2015, Mr. Ravinder Singh sold the property to Mr. Anil Giri through registered GPA, though he had already sold it to one Mr. Jitender Mishra through un-registered GPA dated 10.04.2015 and he is attesting witness on the GPA executed between Mr. Ravinder Singh and Mr. Anil Giri and another witness of GPA is Mr. Hanif. On 27.02.2017, Mr. Jitender Mishra sold 250 sq. yards out of 500 sq. yards from Plot No. 195-196, Khasra No. 60, to the present applicant Koshar Ali who projected himself as Director of M/s Akash Yamuna Township and Developers. On 25.09.2017, Mr. Jitender Mishra also sold the property in question i.e. Plot No. 195-196, Khasra No. 60, measuring 500 sq. yards, situated at New Sabha Pur, New Karawal Nagar, Delhi to accused Madeena Khatun through un-registered GPA. On 29

Click Here to Read the rest of this document