Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:22.02.2022

18:15:20

Page 1 of 15

`

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 4231/2020

Reserved on

: 31.01.2022

Date of Decision : 22.02.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

DEEPAK GOYAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Hedge, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Mukesh Rana, Ms. Mamta and

Mr.Randhir Kumar, Advocates

Versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State

with Inspector Govind Singh, Police Station

Uttam Nagar

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms.

Smriti Asmita, Advocate for complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

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 Police

Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi.

2. Mr. Sanjay Hedge, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant,

contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000677

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:22.02.2022

18:15:20

Page 2 of 15

`

case at the behest of the complainant. It was submitted that the

applicant has been in custody for a total of about 41months and the

charge sheet having been filed, he is no longer required for any

investigation. It was further submitted that the charge sheet in the case

was initially filed in the year 2013, whereafter two supplementary

charge sheets have been filed but till date, charge has not been framed.

3. On merits, it was stated that the applicant came in contact with

the complainant through one common friend and co-accused, namely

Dharmender Yadav. As per the prosecution case, the applicant has

cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.30 crores. During the

pendency of bail proceedings before the Sessions Court, the applicant

entered into a settlement on 20.07.2013, in pursuance of which,

although the entire settled amount was not paid, a land worth Rs.8

crores was transferred to the complainant. Subsequently, on 25.02.2014,

another settlement was arrived at with the complainant, which again did

not fructify. The applicant, however, paid an amount of Rs.50 lacs to

the complainant. Soon after, a third settlement was entered into between

the parties on 10.12.2014, terms of which were again not fulfilled,

though the applicant paid a sum of Rs.1.21 crores. In total, the applicant

is stated to have paid Rs.3.90 crores to the complainant.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the case relates to

the offences of cheating and forgery, and as such, the present criminal

proceedings cannot become a mode of recovery. In this regard, he

placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dilip Singh v.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported as (2021) 2 SCC 779. It

was prayed that considering the fact that the applicant has been in

custody for about 3.5 years and yet charge has not been framed, the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000677

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:22.02.2022

18:15:20

Page 3 of 15

`

further fact that 8-9 co-accused persons remain to be arrested, and the

fact that the trial is not likely to conclude anytime in the near future, the

applicant may be released on bail.

5. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by Mr.

Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant,

vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the

applicant had entered into a total of 8 property transactions with the

complainant, out of which 5 are in Delhi and the remaining 3 are in

Rajasthan. It was further submitted that initially the complain