Anticipatory bail is granted when the accused has cooperated with the investigation, the evidence is primarily documentary, and there is no strong prima facie nexus showing direct benefit from the alleged fraudulent scheme, especially considering the advanced age of the applicant.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant second petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.184 dated 18.04.2021 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana.

2. The petitioner, a 73-year-old man, has approached this Court for seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered against him on the complaint of Kamal Kumar, son of late Bhim Sen, resident of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. According to the complaint, Kamal Kumar is the owner of property No. E-2260, Block-E, Palam Vihar, Gurugram, having purchased the same vide a sale deed dated 30.03.2001. In January 2020, he came to know that one Mr. Vilayil Satyan Pillai, resident of Pandav Nagar, Delhi, was trying to sell his property through brokers in Palam Vihar. On making inquiries with the Sub-Registrar, Gurugram, the complainant discovered that Mr. Pillai had already got the property registered in his own name through a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2019, by allegedly using forged PAN and Aadhaar cards and impersonating the complainant. The complainant further claimed that the photograph, signature, and address in the impugned sale deed were all fake. It was further alleged that Mr. Pillai had obtained a loan of Rs.2 crores from ICICI Bank, Noida, by mortgaging the property registered in his favour on the basis of the forged sale deed, even though the original title documents were still with Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., Gurugram. A fake bank account was also said to have been opened in the name of “Kamal Kumar” at ICICI Bank, Sector 15, Gurugram, where Rs.1.62 crores from the loan amount was credited and later transferred to Neeraj Kumar, who allegedly withdrew the money in cash. It was further stated that Mr. Pillai and his wife were running a business named M/s Trade Link (India) from Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered against the accused persons and others said to be involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading plastic, was approached by two persons, namely Jaideep and Narender, both known to his Chartered Accountant, in connection with the purchase of a property bearing No. E-2260, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring 250 square meters. It was represented to the petitioner that the said property could be purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.2.10 crores. Relying on the said assurance, an Agreement to Sell dated 05.10.2019 was executed with one Kamal Kumar, who was introduced by Jaideep and Narender as the owner of the plot. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- as token money on the same day and subsequently transferred a further sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to the vendor through RTGS in the name of LGCL Properties, a company managed and operated by the said Kamal Kumar and his associates. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a housing loan in the name of his wife, Smt. Geeta Pillai, Proprietor of M/s Trade Links India, New Delhi, for the purchase of the said property. All original title documents, including the conveyance deed, sale deed, and other relevant records executed in favour of Kamal Kumar, were deposited with the Bank and duly verified prior to sanction