Delhi High Court
Javed Ali vs State on 26 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1639/2017
Order reserved on 09th October, 2017
Order pronounced on 26th October, 2017
JAVED ALI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State
with SI Anurag, PS Mehrauli.
Mr. O.P. Panwar, Advocate for
complainant with complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By this present application filed under Section 438 Cr.PC, the
petitioner is seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
315/2017 under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') registered at Police Station-
Mehrauli.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused entered
into a collaboration agreement with one Mr. Narender Singh
according to which it was decided that upon completion of the
construction both the parties shall own equal proportion of flats in
the building. Another co-accused Pooja Duggal who runs a
property dealer office at Mehrauli mediated the deal between the
petitioner and her brother-in-law (Jeeja) and paid a token amount
of Rs.1 Lac to the petitioner towards purchase of the one flat at the
BAIL APPLN. 1639/2017 Page no. 1 of 3
second floor. Thereafter, Pooja Duggal sold the aforesaid flat to
the complainant vide Agreement to Sell dated 04.10.2013 and
received an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs towards advance for purchase of
the aforesaid flat. Shortly, thereafter the petitioner sold the same
flat to Jagbir Singh and in order to reduce the documentation the
petitioner got the sale deed executed between Narender Singh and
Jagbir Singh. When the complainant found that the flat for which
he had paid the earnest money and been also sold to someone else,
he lodged the complaint against the petitioner.
3. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner has been named maliciously in the FIR by the
complainant in order to extract money from him; that the applicant
had never made any agreement with the complainant nor had he
received any amount from Pooja Duggal or the complainant; that
the whole contents of the FIR are vague and nothing has been
specifically alleged against the petitioner; that the complainant
alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs.7 Lacs to the petitioner but no
documentary proof in support of the alleged payment has been
furnished by the complainant; that the petitioner deserves grant of
anticipatory bail on parity with Pooja Duggal who has already been
granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court on 31.05.2017 in the
instant case; that the petitioner has been cooperating with the
investigating Officer and deserves grant of bail.
4. Per contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the State strongly
opposed the present anticipatory bail application and argued that
the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious and grave
BAIL APPLN. 1639/2017 Page no. 2 of 3
in nature and he played a major role in deceiving the complainant;
that he has not been cooperating with the Investigating Officer and
intentionally not producing the documents pertaining to the entire
property which are in his possession despite specific direction from
the Trial Court.
5. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
6. It is not disputed that the flat in question belonged to the petitioner.
The allegations contained in the FIR are that the flat had been sold
to brother-in-law of Pooja Duggal who in turn sold the same to the
complainant and also received an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs which has
been paid to the petitioner. The role of the petitioner cannot be
ruled out, moreso, because the original documents are in his
possession and he has not cooperated in the investigation by not
submitting the relevant documents due to which there is a strong
apprehension that he will not cooperate in further investigation if
bail is granted to him.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
gravity of offence and the fact that the investigation is at a
preliminary stage, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory
bail to the petitioner at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
October 26, 2017
BAIL APPLN. 1639/2017 Page no. 3 of 3
