Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VISHAL BHUTANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-1308/2021
Bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial.
Headnote:
BAIL - CANCELLATION - FORGERY - CHEATING - TRESPASSING - HOUSE BREAKING - SUPERvening CIRCUMSTANCES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a complainant in a case involving forgery, cheating, trespassing, and house breaking, filed a petition to cancel the bail granted to the respondent, Manjeet Singh. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was likely to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, and that the trial court had erred in granting bail without considering the investigation file and status report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had not established any supervening circumstances that would warrant the cancellation of bail. The court noted that the chargesheet had been filed, there were no allegations of tampering or influencing of witnesses, and the respondent had not violated the terms of his bail.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting bail to the respondent without considering the investigation file and status report. 2. Whether the petitioner had established supervening circumstances that would warrant the cancellation of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, which held that bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial. The court found that the petitioner had not established any such circumstances in the present case.
Final Decision: The petition to cancel the respondent's bail was dismissed.
Crl.M.C. 1308/2021
Page 1 of 9
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on
: 23.08.2021
%
Pronounced on : 06.01.2022
+
CRL.M.C. 1308/2021
VISHAL BHUTANI
..... Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
STATE AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through:
Dr. M.P.Singh, APP for the State with
SI Anand Pratap PS Laxmi Nagar.
Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Chaudhary and Mr. Vishesh
Kumar, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
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.
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000100
Crl.M.C. 1308/2021
Page 2 of 9
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
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000100
Crl.M.C. 1308/2021
Page 3 of 9
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 2ndand 3rdFloor 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 1stfloor 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
