Delhi High Court
Sandeep Dabas vs State on 5 August, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 30th July, 2010
Date of Order: August 05, 2010
+ Bail Appln. 1122 of 2010
% 05.08.2010
Sandeep Dabas ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate
Versus
State ...Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred
by the petitioner/accused to grant regular bail under FIR No.239 under Sections
420/468/471/120-B IPC dated 21st September 2009 registered with Police Station Nihal
Vihar, Delhi.
2. The allegations made by the complainant in the FIR are that one Shri Kamal
Sharma who is working as a property dealer in the area had approached the complainant
on 25th June, 2009 and informed about availability of a property being sold by the owner
as a distress sale. The complainant along with the said Kamal Sharma visited the
property. One Sunil Rana met them at the property who introduced himself as a property
dealer. Another person was introduced to her as a tenant in the said property and
residing in the flat. He confirmed that the property was owned by Mrs. Neelam and she
had asked him to vacate the flat as she wanted to sell the same. On the request of
complainant a meeting was arranged with one lady who introduced herself as Mrs.
Bail Appln. 1122/2010 Sandeep Dabas V State Page 1 Of 2
Neelam, the owner of property, she and had brought with her original conveyance deed
bearing her photographs and stamps. The consideration money was taken from
complainant. It later on conspired that all these persons had conspired together on the
basis of forged documents and a fraud was played on the complainant as the flat in
question did not belong to the accused Mrs. Neelam. The complainant was defrauded for
a sum of Rs.45 lac under a conspiracy. A case under Sections 420/468/471/120B read
with Section 34 IPC was registered against the said persons.
3. The name of present accused, who has made this bail application, does not
appear in the FIR. The application made by the accused is opposed by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for State on the ground that the present accused was the
person who induced complainant to purchase this property and he initiated talks for
entire transaction. However, a perusal of FIR lodged by complainant does not support
this contention. In the FIR, it is categorically mentioned that it was Kamal Sharma, a
property dealer of the area who approached the complainant. In subsequent statement
of complainant she stated that the present accused also was involved in encouraging her
to purchase this flat. However, the property dealer Mr. Kamal Sharma, who is named in
the FIR has already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. I consider no
reason to reject the bail application of the petitioner/accused. The application of the
petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of concerned court.
4. The application stands disposed of.
August 05, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
Bail Appln. 1122/2010 Sandeep Dabas V State Page 2 Of 2
