The main legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the modus operandi, and the court's discretion in dismissing the petition for anticipatory bail.

Judgment

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant petition is the second petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.188 dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sector 9-A, District Gurugram.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made on the previous date of hearing and has asserted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case for committing a fraud pertaining to an ‘Agreement to Sell’ of a plot of land in Gurugram. Learned counsel has argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR do not even remotely attract the mischief of offences alleged therein and the dispute, if any between the parties, is purely of a civil nature which has been twisted to give it a criminal colour. While referring to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-4 to assert that there was ample evidence on record to show that the plot in question had been originally allotted to one Khauti Lal by HUDA qua which a possession letter had also been issued in the year 2002. Subsequently, an ‘Agreement to Sell’ was entered into between the petitioner and said Khauti Lal, however, after Khauti Lal failed to execute the sale deed, the petitioner filed a Suit for Specific Performance, which had been since decreed in his favour. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P-5.

3. Furthermore, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has asserted that there was no intent to cheat the complainant as he had also applied for reissuance of the allotment letter pertaining to the plot in question from HUDA. He has maintained that the ‘Agreement to Sell’ was entered into between the parties only after full disclosure of the status of the plot to the complainant. Learned Senior counsel has still further submitted that since the petitioner, in compliance of the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency, the interim bail granted to him be made absolute as there would be no need for his custodial interrogation, coupled with the fact that the entire case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for HUDA and learned counsel for the complainant-respondents, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned State counsel, on instructions, that no doubt the petitioner had indeed joined investigation but despite being summoned repeatedly, he had been completely evasive and had not been extending cooperation; during investigation, it had come to light that the plot in question had never been allotted by HUDA to anyone; the petitioner had prepared a fake allotment letter in the name of one Khauti Lal, whose existence had not been proved till date, and in fact, he seemingly was a non-existent person. It has been still further submitted that the petitioner had thus fraudulently entered into an ‘Agreement to Sell’ with the complainant despite being fully aware that neither he nor said Khauti Lal had any title over the plot in question and duped the complainant of lakhs of money.

5. Learned State counsel has further contended that besides this, many more glaring inconsistencies had come to the fore in the version put forth by the petitioner as he had during his interrogation, submitted that said Khauti Lal was his tenant, however, during his investigation, a Special Power of Attorney executed by said Khauti Lal mentioned the petitioner as being his brother. It has still furthe