Pooja Dutt Gupta vs State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 8937 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                   +        BAIL APPLN. No.532/2015

    POOJA DUTT GUPTA                                    ..... Petitioner
                 Through              Mr.Akil, Adv. with Mr.Vishal Garg,
                                      Adv.

                           versus


    STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                               ..... Respondent
                   Through            Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State
                                      with Inspt.Sandeep Gupta, PS Uttam
                                      Nagar.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                    JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)

1. The present bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the petitioner for seeking

anticipatory bail in the case registered vide FIR No.502/2015 under

Sections 420/467/468/471/403/506/406 of Indian Penal Code

registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar.

2. Mr.Akil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

present case totally relates to sale and purchase of various properties

and the dispute is regarding the payment received by other accused

person. It is submitted that the complainant Mr.Raj Kumar purchased

a property in Panchkula against foreign exchange and sold the same to

Smt. Manju Sethi on 5th October, 1982. On 20th August, 1992, the

complainant purchased agricultural land for Rs.97,000/- being one

bigha out of Khasara No.5/20, situated in the village Haibatpur,

Najafgarh, Delhi. The petitioner is the daughter of Mr.Sudesh Kumar

who happens to be the General Power of Attorney holder of the said

agricultural land belonging to the complainant Mr.Raj Kumar.

3. It is stated in the FIR that as per the complainant Mr.Raj

Kumar, Mr.Sudesh Kumar assured him that he being his younger

brother, would look after the land and a power of attorney was

executed by the complainant in favour of Mr.Sudesh Kumar.

However, it was alleged that the said property was clandestinely sold

by Mr.Sudesh Kumar who was misusing the said power of attorney

without the knowledge of the complainant. It is further stated in the

FIR that the complainant Mr.Raj Kumar was threatened of dire

consequences by the accused Mr.Sudesh Kumar and his son in case he

claims any of his properties or claims any sale proceeds of properties

belonging to the complainant.

4. The State has filed a status report and it transpires from the

same that the petitioner along with her father Mr.Sudesh Kumar have

kept the entire sale proceeds received from the sale of properties

situated at Panchkula, Haryana; Habitpura and Tokala (Rajasthan), by

assuring the complainant for adjustment of amount in the property

situated in Delhi Welcome Group Housing Society which is under

liquidation and have no land anywhere. It is further stated in the

status report that the complainant Mr.Raj Kumar was again assured by

Mr.Sudesh Kumar that the sale proceeds of Panchkula property would

be partially adjusted with Delhi Welcome Group Housing Society and

petitioner Ms.Pooja Dutt had issued him a share certificate in his

name but she was not an office bearer of Society and the actual office

bearer had made a complaint against the accused Sudesh Kumar as he

showed himself as president of the Society. Thus, bail is strongly

opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground that by not

returning money, the petitioner and her father have committed a

serious offence.

5. The anticipatory bail of the applicant was dismissed on 17 th

January, 2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground

that the sale consideration was managed by the father of the petitioner

who was inducted as a member of a Group Housing Society and was

issued a share certificate but some of the documents shown were

fictitious. The petitioner was shown as actively participating in the

affairs of the said Society. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, the present bail application has been filed

by the petitioner on 28th February, 2015.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It

transpires from the record that notice was issued to the State on 20th

March, 2015 when the petitioner was directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer on 27th March, 2015 and thereafter as and when

called. Vide order dated 20th August, 2015, the petitioner was granted

protection from arrest and she was directed to join investigation.

7. It has been submitted by learned APP for the State on

instruction of the Investigating Officer who is present in Court that

the petitioner has joined the investigation and she is no more required

for further investigation or custodial interrogation. The factual

position from the report of the Investigation Officer culminates into

the entitlement of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has joined the

investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the

petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. In the facts and circumstances, it is directed that in the event of

arrest, the petitioner Ms.Pooja Dutt Gupta shall be admitted to

anticipatory bail subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the arresting Officer. The petitioner is directed not to influence the

prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not leave

the country without prior permission of the Court concerned.

With aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 01, 2015 aa