Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Khurana vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 30 June, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 30th June, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 1268/2015
NARENDER KUMAR KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. L.S. Solanki and
Ms. Geeta Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for
State with Inspr. Hira Lal, PS-Saket.
Mr. P.R. Chatterjee and Mr. Ricky
Kundra, Advs. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 9150/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1268/2015
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner while assailing the
order dated 07.08.2013 passed by Trial Court.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that vide the aforesaid order, ld. Judge came to the conclusion that it
is not believable the petitioner was stated to be a Clerk in the State
Bank of India and claimed that an amount of Rs.30 Lac was given
by him to the complainant as he had received sale proceeds of his
Rani Bagh property.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was a witness of the agreement entered into between
Dinesh Kundra / complainant and Dinesh Singhania, the main
accused for the purchase of a property at Saket. The transaction
amount of Rs.80 Lac in respect of the said property was given in
favour of Dinesh Singhania. However, the petitioner has not
received even a single penny from the said transaction as alleged.
4. In addition to that the petitioner had given a loan of Rs.30
Lac to the complainant Dinesh Kundra as is evident from the
memorandum of understanding, which is at page 24 of the Paper
Book. The complainant Dinesh Kundra had issued two cheques,
i.e., Rs.30 Lac and Rs.5 Lac of dated 05.08.2013 and 30.05.2013
respectively, both drawn on HDFC Bank, as security.
5. Ld. Counsel submits that main accused Dinesh Singhania has
not been arrested till date and therefore, the complainant is putting
pressure on the petitioner, although the petitioner is not aware of the
whereabouts of Dinesh Singhania.
6. Ld. Counsel further submits that in addition to that co-
accused Nikhil Kharbanda, who was also the witness of the Sale
Agreement was enlarged on a regular bail by this Court vide order
dated 08.06.2015. The petitioner is similarly situated and therefore,
he can also be enlarged on bail by putting any condition upon him.
7. On the other hand, ld. APP submits that in the present case,
main accused namely Dinesh Singhania is still absconding and the
co-accused Nikhil Kharbanda, who was also the witness of the Sale
Agreement was arrested on 16.05.2015 and was enlarged on bail by
this court vide order 08.06.2015.
8. Ld. APP further submits that petitioner and the main accused
Dinesh Singhania allured the complainant to purchase the said
property as the said property was free from all encumbrances.
Accordingly, the complainant entered into an agreement with
Dinesh Singhania and had paid Rs.80 Lac as a total sale
consideration. After the payment, when the complainant visited the
site for taking the possession, he came to know that the property
was in the name of DDA and a signboard to this effect was also
found there. Thereafter, on enquiry from the DDA, the complainant
came to know that the said property belongs to DDA and the
accused Dinesh Singhania has sold the aforesaid property on bogus
documents. After this information, the complainant made first
complaint on 01.02.2013. Thereafter, the documents relating to the
allotment of the property in question was produced by the
petitioner. Accordingly, the complainant pursued them to pay the
said amount, however, could not get the same. Thereafter, another
complaint was made on 22.03.2013, which culminated into FIR
no. 272/2013 registered at PS-Saket, under Sections
468/471/120B/420/467 IPC against the accused including the
petitioner.
9. Ld. APP further submits that petitioner is instrumental to the
Sale proceeds. Therefore, being the beneficiary of the amount, he
may not be enlarged on bail.
10. Fact remains that, complainant entered into an agreement on
12.12.2009 with Dinesh Singhania, the main accused. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner was the signatory of the said agreement
as a witness. It is further not in dispute that as per the
memorandum of understanding dated 08.11.2012, the complainant
had taken a loan of Rs.30 Lac from the petitioner and two cheques
as noted above were issued in favour of the petitioner, which have
been dishonoured on presenting.
11. In addition to above, another witness of the Sale Agreement
namely Nikhil Kharbanda has been enlarged on a regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 08.06.2015.
12. In view of above, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled
for the relief sought in the instant petition.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
14. Consequently, concerned IO is directed to release the
petitioner on bail on a personal security of Rs.50,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to his satisfaction in the event of arrest.
15. Petitioner is directed to join investigation and shall attend the
call of the IO as and when required. He shall not influence the
witness and tamper with any documents and shall not leave the
jurisdiction of this Court without giving prior intimation to IO.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JUNE 30, 2015
jg
