On 11th October, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Subramoniam Prasad held that while granting bail, the Court has to consider precise factors while deciding an application for bail. The Court at the stage of bail does not need to conduct a mini-trial and need not appreciate the evidence on record and should not perform the functions of the Trial Court.
Facts of the case:
The petition was under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.328/2019 dated 05.11.2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B IPC. In the stated that in the instant FIR it is stated that Vinod Thapa persuaded the complainant by stating that the land is being sold at a very low price and that the complainant would be able to sell the plot at a very high price. It is stated that the complainant was reluctant to go ahead with the deal but Vinod Thapa offered to make 50% investment in the said property. It was further stated that the complainant has invested more than Rs.2 crores in the transactionsbut after paying more than Rs.2 crores, the complainant started following up with accused Nos.1-4 (Vinod Thapa, Prashant Thapa, Mohd. Zaidi and Rajan Sharma) for execution of the sale deeds with the prospective buyers but nothing was progressing. It was later found that the petitioner was not the owner of the entire property which he represented that he is the owner of the entire property. Also, on an enquiry it was found that the portion of land which was to be sold to the complainant was in fact Government land, not belonging to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was cheated and had been lured to pay a substantial sum of money.
Contention of the petitioner:
Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the Petitioner, contended the following:
- It was contended that that the instant case arises out of a civil transaction and that the petitioner owns a majority of the portion of the land and only a small portion of land is Government land.
- He also submitted that after receiving the notices the complainant did not take any step for payment of the outstanding amount rather he has instituted the present complaint.
- It was lastly stated that the present FIR is only an abuse of the process of law.
Contention of the respondent:
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant contended the following :
1. It was submitted hat the Petitioner is a habitual offender and is an accused in FIR No. 266 of 2021 registered at PS Karol Bagh and that the Petitioner has used the same modus operandi to sell the same patch of farm land to one Gurpreet Singh and is running a racket of defrauding people, many of them are in the process of being unearthed.
2. He also contended that the Petitioner will influence key witnesses to turn hostile in the trial as the co-owners of the land have submitted affidavits which are vague and false contrary to their statements recorded by the Police during investigation.
3. It was submitted that the affidavit of witness Mahavir Singh in the trial is a fabricated as it does not contain the particulars of the notary who has stamped on it.
4. He submitted that accused Dinesh Chandra Ramola who projected himself to be an owner of land also entered into agreement of sale with the Complainant, was in fact the driver of the petitioner not owning any land acting on Petitioner’ instructions.
Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State, opposes the instant bail application. She contends that the Petitioner, in conspiracy with Vinod Thapa and other accused, who were connected and related to the Petitioner and Vinod Thapa, have hatched an elaborate plan to dupe the complainant and entered into agreements to sell. She further stated that one co-accused, Rihana (Accused No.8) is still absconding.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The following observation has been made by the hon'ble bench of the court:
1. It is settled law that while granting bail, the Court has to consider precise factors while deciding an application for bail.
2. The evidence is primarily documentary in nature and is in the custody of the police. The complainant is also a man of means and the chances of his being won over by the accused by threat etc. is remote.
In the view of the above the complainant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :