Om Prakash vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 5712 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 BAIL APPL. NO. 728/2011

                                Date of Decision : 24.11.2011

OM PRAKASH                                   ......Petitioner
                              Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv.

                              Versus

STATE                                           ......
Respondent
                              Through: Mr. U. Garg, Adv. for the
                                       complainant

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI


V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail by the

petitioner in respect of FIR No. 96/2011, under Section

420/34 IPC registered by P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi. The

allegations are that the father of the petitioner Hiralal

had cheated the complainant for a sum of `20,00,000/-

by inducing him to part with the said amount on account

of sale of his property bearing no. 22A, Khasra No. 420

situated at Khanpur Village, Delhi measuring 300 sq.

yards. Out of the aforesaid amount, a receipt for a sum

of `2,50,000/- is purported to have been shown on

account of loan being taken by the accused person from

the complainant. For the balance, there is no receipt as

it was given in cash. The receipt has the signatures of

two persons, namely, Surender and Omprakash.

Surender and Omprakash are stated to be the sons of

Hiralal. It is the case of the complainant that the father

Hiralal and his sons in unison cheated the complainant.

After agreeing to sell the property in favour of the

complainant, the petitioner and the other co-accused are

stated to have become dishonest and sold the property

to some third party for a sum of `6 crore and 80 lakhs

and taken a sum of `25,00,000/- as an advance

whereupon the present FIR has been got registered.

2. The anticipatory bail applications of Hiralal and Surender

have already been rejected by this Court on 17.10.2011.

There is no reason to take a different view, so far as the

petitioner is concerned, as the allegations against him

are also serious. The petitioner has relied upon an

order passed in bail application No. 2512/2009 and

2514/2009 to pray for bail.

3. I have gone through the said order, no parallel of facts in

the case of Smt. Durgesh Bansal Vs. State and the

present petition cannot be drawn. Accordingly, the

anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

NOVEMBER 24, 2011 KP