Naresh Kumar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3849 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  BAIL APPLN. No.1847/2009

                                                  Decided on 18.08.2010

IN THE MATTER OF :
NARESH KUAMR                                                 ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Mr.Amit Tanwar and
                          Mr.H.S.Khatana, Advocates

                   versus

STATE                                                    ..... Respondent
                          Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
                          Inspector Rajendra Prasad, EOW


CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., in respect of

FIR No.511/2007 lodged by the complainant, Mr.Naresh Sabharwal against

the petitioner and three others under Section 120B/406/419/420 IPC

registered with PS Defence Colony.

2. A status report was filed by the State on 24.9.2009. An

additional status report dated 6.11.2009 is handed over by the learned APP

for the State.

3. As per the status report, the facts of the case are that the

complainant, Mr.Naresh Sabharwal alleged that the petitioner introduced

himself as a Patwari of District Sohna, Gurgaon and showed him a piece of

land measuring 110 acres claiming that the same belonged to him though on

papers, the same was in the names of one Mr.Arun Mathur and Mr.Narayan

Mathur, two other co-accused. Believing the assurance given by the

petitioner, the complainant entered into an agreement, which was signed by

Mr.Arun Mathur, as the owner and another co-accused, Mr.Jagdish

Nambardar, as a witness. The complainant claims to have paid a sum of

Rs.5,77,500/- in cash to the petitioner, and subsequently, a demand draft of

Rs.5,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash was paid to the petitioner,

who issued a receipt under his signatures to the complainant acknowledging

receipt of payment. The complainant further alleged that he was planning to

sell his TATA Safari Car, which the petitioner herein offered to purchase from

him for a sale consideration of Rs.5,25,000/- and it was agreed that the sale

proceeds of the vehicle would also be adjusted towards the final payment of

the land deal between the parties.

4. The complainant alleged that a separate agreement was

executed at the instance of the petitioner, with Mr.Narayan and his son,

Devesh Sabharwal whereafter a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- was given in the

name of Mr.Narayan and a sum of Rs.2,77,5000/- was given in cash to the

petitioner, who retained the agreement with him on the plea that signatures

were to be obtained from the witness, Mr.Jagdish Nambardar. The

complainant claimed that thereafter, he kept approaching the petitioner for

execution of the sale deed, but the petitioner started avoiding him, which

finally compelled him to lodge the aforesaid FIR.

5. In the present case, vide order dated 6.10.2009, an interim

protection was granted to the petitioner subject to his appearing before the

IO as and when summoned. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and therefore he is

not required to be arrested. He further states that in the aforesaid order, his

submission to the effect that the FIR was a counter blast to the complaint

filed by the petitioner against the complainant on 7.5.2005, with regard to

the sale transaction of the TATA Safari Car between the parties, which was

followed by a civil suit instituted by the petitioner against the complainant.

6. Learned APP strongly opposes the relief of anticipatory bail by

the petitioner and states that the petitioner is one of the main accused in the

present case. He submits that the specimen signatures of the petitioner had

been obtained so as to compare them with his signatures as existing on the

receipt issued by him to the complainant. The FSL report dated 16.3.2010

has now been received and is on the record. As per the said report, the

questioned signatures on the receipt and the specimen signatures of the

petitioner tally.

7. The Court is further informed that during the investigation, it has

transpired that one of the co-accused, Mr.Arun Mathur who represented

himself to be a cousin of the petitioner, and signed the agreement to sell

dated 9.3.2005 in the capacity of owner of the parcel of land and received

from the complainant, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by a demand draft, had duly

credited the said amount in his account. The said co-accused, Mr.Arun

Mathur was arrested on 1.9.2009 and is in judicial custody. The other co-

accused, Mr.Jagdish Nambardar was in judicial custody since 24.4.2010 and

has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in the month of August 2010.

Mr.Narayan, the third co-accused is stated to be absconding and steps are

being taken by the State, to have him declared a proclaimed offender.

8. Learned APP for the State submits that the second agreement is

still in the custody of the petitioner and it has not been recovered and

further, that the antecedents of the petitioner are also not clean as he is

involved in four separate cases registered against him, namely, FIR

No.41/05 under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471, FIR No.237/99 under

Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120B, FIR No.71/05 under Sections

406/419/420/467/468/471 and FIR No. 342/04 under Sections

406/419/420/467/468/471 PS Sohna. It is submitted that in the aforesaid

complaints, the same modus operandi has been adopted by the petitioner to

dupe innocent purchasers, as adopted in the present case and that his being

granted anticipatory bail would hinder the investigation. It is also stated that

the petitioner has failed to give complete replies to the questions put to him

and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the money taken by

him.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not

a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer made in the

petition is declined. The petition is dismissed.

10. Needless to state that the observations made herein are purely

for the purpose of considering grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and

shall not be treated as a reflection on the merits of the case.

                                                               HIMA KOHLI,J
AUGUST       18, 2010
mk