Delhi High Court
Nar Singh Shah vs State on 11 March, 2016
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 11th March 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 550/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.4369/2016
NAR SINGH SHAH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashwin Vaish, Mr.V.K.
Pandey, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.P. Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Ajay Dispant,
Advocate for the Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 11.03.2016
P.S. TEJI, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.4369/2016 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Bail Appln. No. 550/2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner
seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 739/2014 under Section 406/420 of
IPC at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi.
2. Complainant - Narender Kumar Magu filed an application
under Section 156(3) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for
registration of FIR in respect of the fraud being committed upon him.
The petitioner was working as an employee as a storekeeper in a
factory of complainant's friend and he induced the complainant for
purchasing an agricultural land belonging to Ranjha Singh, Mangat
Singh and Sumender having Khasra No.248 min(1-1) and 255 min (0-
19) situated at Village Jaitpur, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi. The
complainant alleged that the petitioner had taken 3 cheques of Rs.17
lacs each in the names of sellers/owners and ultimately got the sale
deed executed in his favour.
3. Mr. Ashwin Vaish, counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner intended to purchase the aforesaid land for which he
approached his friend Sudesh Sad for friendly loan in the sum of
Rs.51 lacs. It was Sudesh who obtained three cheques of Rs.17 lacs
each from the complainant and handed them over to him. The said
Sudesh Sad neither told the complainant that he intends to forward the
cheques to the petitioner nor he disclosed that the petitioner has taken
loan from the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner got the sale deed
executed in his favour.
4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
complainant has also filed a case under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 against Sudesh Sad, which is pending
adjudication. It is further submitted that the complainant had also filed
a civil suit against Sudesh Sad. It is further contended that the original
sale deed in respect of the aforesaid land was stolen and the petitioner
registered an FIR.
5. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
Investigating Officer had issued notice to produce the documents and
Sudesh Sad also received a notice to join the investigation and
apprised the true facts to the Investigating Officer. Petitioner has also
replied to the notice sent by Investigating Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the
present case is of civil nature and is the subject matter of civil
adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended
that the sellers have also taken the stand that the petitioner is not
involved in the present case. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have
been granted bail in the present matter.
7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has further relied on the judgment of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
and Others v.State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Arnesh Kumar
v. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, for grant of
anticipatory bail.
8. Mr. M.P. Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and
submitted that the bail application has already been rejected by learned
Additional Session Judge vide order dated 01.03.2016 while observing
that despite the direction to produce the documents in respect of the
land, the petitioner has not complied with the direction.
9. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties
and also gone through the material placed on record.
10. After careful scrutiny of the matter, and perusal of the FIR this
Court observes that there are specific allegations with regard to three
cheques for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- each in respect of purchase of
agricultural land and the said agricultural land is registered in the
name of the petitioner. The three cheques were used for purchasing the
property from Shri Ranjha Singh, Shri Mangat Singh & Shri
Sumender. The cheques were handed over to the seller of the property
and ultimately, the property was got registered in his own name vide
which the complainant suffered wrongful losses of Rs.51,00,000/- as
the property was to be purchased for a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- in the
name of the complainant.
11. This Court further observes that the sale deed was got registered
by the petitioner from the person named above, without making any
payment from his funds, which shows that the cheques were handed
over by the petitioner to the seller.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is a fact
apparent on the face of record that it is a case where the cheques were
issued by the complainant and the property was purchased in the name
of petitioner. So far as the judgments relied upon by counsel for the
petitioner, I do not find applicability of judgments in the facts of the
present case.
13. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this court, the
petitioner - Nar Singh Shah does not deserve the concession of grant
of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is
dismissed.
14. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
15. With aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed
of.
(P.S.TEJI)
Judge
MARCH 11, 2016
aa/pkb
