Mehraj Ahmad vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 7905 Del

#3
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 14.10.2015

BAIL APPLN. 2072/2015

MEHRAJ AHMAD                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Vijay Kinger, Advocate

                          versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)         ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for with SI Amit Verma, PS- Gokulpuri, Delhi Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the Complainant CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A.14406/2015 (Exemption)

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

BAIL APPLN.2072/2015

1. The present is an application under section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking pre-

arrest bail in FIR No.265/2015, under sections 420/406/34 IPC, registered at

Police Station- Gokulpuri, Delhi.

2. In the present case, it is pertinent to point out that both the applicant as

well as the co-accused are absconding in spite of repeated notices having

been served for their appearance before the IO in the subject FIR.

3. Mr. Kinger, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states

that the subject FIR is a consequence of a property transaction which has

already been honoured by the applicant. Mr. Kinger would then urge that

the subject FIR has been registered at the behest of the daughter of the lady

with whom he entered into the property transaction so as to coerce him.

4. According to the prosecution, the applicant approached the widowed

mother of the complainant for the purchase of her house situated in Gali

No.3, Wazirabad, Sangam Vihar, Delhi along with the co-accused Mustqim.

The sale of the house belonging to the complainant's mother was concluded

on the admitted sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/-. Upon receipt of the

entire consideration, the Conveyance Deed was executed by the mother of

the complainant in favour of the co-accused Mustqim and possession of the

subject property was handed over to the latter. At that stage, sensing the

vulnerability of the vendor and her daughter (complainant), the applicant

along with his co-accused persuaded them to invest the entire proceeds of the

sale consideration with the latter on an assurance that they would receive an

interest quantified in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for every quarter. The

applicant along with his co-accused won over the confidence of the

complainant and her mother and induced them to invest a further sum of

Rs.8,50,000/-.

5. Inevitably, the hapless women alleged that they were taken for a merry

ride and realized their mistake when the applicant and his co-accused kept

persuading them to invest further sums with them without offering anything

in return by way of interest.

6. In the present case, prima facie it appears that the applicant and his co-

accused are confidence tricksters who play on unsuspecting victims like the

complainant and her mother. Even otherwise, neither the applicant nor his

co-accused Mustqim have made themselves available for questioning after

the registration of the FIR despite repeated notices in this behalf being

served upon them by the police. The investigation is at initial stage and

grant of pre-arrest bail would cause severe prejudice to the investigation.

Admittedly, there were transactions between the applicant and his co-

accused on one hand and the complainant and her mother on the other and

the latter were induced to part with large sums of money.

7. In my view, therefore, custodial interrogation is warranted in the

present case, since it is more elicitation oriented than questioning an accused

who is well ensconced with an order of pre-arrest bail.

8. In view of the forgoing, the present application is devoid of merit and

is accordingly dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

OCTOBER 14, 2015 dn