Rajesh Chaudhary vs The State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9533 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               Judgment delivered on : December 22, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 2025/2014
      RAJESH CHAUDHARY                                  ..... Petitioner
                  Through:            Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate with
                                      Mr.Dhan Mohan, Advocate and
                                      Ms.Tanu B.Mishra, Advocate.

                         versus

      THE STATE                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                      Prosecutor for the State
                                      Mr.Manish Raghav, Advocate for
                                      Complainant.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section

438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

Cr. P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in case registered as 448/2014

under Sections 467/468/120-B/471/420 of IPC, Police Station Vasant

Kunj North, New Delhi.

2. A perusal of the record of this case reveals that there is a

property dispute between the complainant-Arun Kumar and the

petitioner and both the parties have filed various litigations against

each other. Apart from the present case, another case being FIR No.

225/2013 is pending which was lodged by the same complainant and

in which the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail and trial is

going on. Transactions in respect of sale of property have been

disputed, veracity of documents are alleged, initiation of case under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I.Act') and

dismissal thereof is also alleged.

3. Firstly, the deal for sale of property No.4402, Sector-B, pocket-

5&6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was conducted, documents of which

were verified by the ICICI Bank which were found to be genuine.

Loan was sanctioned by the bank and it released a sum of Rs.47 lac in

favour of Mr.S.P. Saini by way of pay order. Thereafter on

03.12.2008 DDA locked the said flat without giving any notice or

intimation. Petitioner filed writ petition vide no. 8814/2008 on

08.12.2008 in High Court of Delhi, in which this Court directed the

DDA to make proper inquiry but till date since the year 2009, neither

DDA nor the Sub registrar made any inquiry and ultimately the

petitioner surrendered the possession of the Flat to DDA.

4. Secondly, the complainant alongwith his brother Hira Lal again

persuaded the petitioner for purchasing another flat bearing No. SFS

Flat No.343, Block GH 13, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and the

petitioner also handed over four account payee cheques. To satisfy

himself, the petitioner asked for papers and property and that is when

he came to know of the forged company M/s. Lakeshore Builders Pvt.

Ltd and thereafter he instructed the bank to stop payment of the

cheques issued to Mr. Arun Kumar. Mr. Arun Kumar was also

instructed by the complainant not to deposit the cheque. But the

complainant filed a criminal case under Section 138 of N.I.Act against

the petitioner in which the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

acquitted the petitioner on 13.05.2013 with remark that Mr. Arun

Kumar filed a forge and a fabricated case. Thereafter, petitioner filed

a criminal case under Sections 416/417/418/419/420/467/468 of IPC

against Mr. Arun Kumar, Hira Lal as well as against M/s. Lakeshore

Builders Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2011 which is still pending.

5. Thirdly, in an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner FIR

No. 225/2013 in Police Station Mianwali Nagar was registered by the

complainant and his brother, wherein it has been proved that Mr.

Arun Kumar used to forge and fabricate documents and cheat the

public at large. However, petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on

30.11.2013 by the concerned Court.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the

year 2008, the petitioner is waiting for inquiry report on behalf of the

DDA and the petitioner has not caused any harm either to the

government or to any other person. Allegations regarding threatening

with dire consequences to the petitioner on 02.08.2014 while

appearing before the concerned Court have also been alleged by the

petitioner. It is further contended that the present FIR is already under

investigation by the DDA and the petitioner is suffering the most in

due to the case as he has lost all his savings as well as the Flat in

question of which he is a bonafide purchaser and he is already

contesting the case of the ICICI Bank due to the illegal activities of

the complainant - Mr. Arun Kumar.

7. While narrating the facts, dealing with different transactions in

respect of different flats and the incidents of allurement to the

petitioner by the complainant and finally surrendering the flat to

DDA and even thereafter continuing payment of instalments of the

said flat to the ICICI Bank, the counsel for the petitioner expressed

the bonafide of the petitioner.

8. The details and gist of litigations pending before the petitioner

and the complainant are not required to be considered at this stage and

what this Court needs to consider is that whether the petitioner has

been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of anticipatory bail

in this case.

9. Mr. Jatan Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

contended that the petitioner has already been granted interim

protection by order dated 23.08.2014 and he had already joined the

investigation on 25.08.2014, 27.08.2014, 29.08.2014, 30.08.2014,

04.09.2014 and 05.09.2014.

10. Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted on the last date that the petitioner has joined the

investigation twice but the third time, he did not co-operate in the

investigation, however, the file of the investigation does not show

even an iota of word to this effect. Apparently, there is no necessity of

custodial interrogation.

11. After hearing the aforesaid submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned

order and the material placed on record, this Court observes that the

petitioner was granted interim protection on 11.09.2014 and since

then, he is on anticipatory bail. In view of the facts that the petitioner

has joined the investigation and that there is no need for custodial

interrogation, accordingly, it is hereby ordered that in the event of

arrest, the petitioner - Rajesh Chaudhary be released on bail subject to

furnishing of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

12. It goes without saying that anything observed in this petition

shall not have any bearing on the merit of the case during trial.

13. With aforesaid directions, both the bail applications stand

disposed of.

14. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2015/pkb