Sunil Garg vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2018 Latest Caselaw 1018 Del

$~52

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 12.02.2018

+      BAIL APPLN. 110/2018

       SUNIL GARG                                     ..... Petitioner
                           versus
       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI                           ..... Respondent


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner :      Mr. Amar Pal, Advocate.


For the Respondent     :   Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
                           Inspector Pradeep Kumar, PS
                           Naraina.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                  ORDER

    %             12.02.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

BAIL APPLN. 110/2018

1. The petitioner seeks Bail in FIR No.126/2012 under Section 420/120B IPC, Police Station Narayana.

2. It is contended in the subject FIR that the petitioner had agreed to sell his property bearing No. 45, Block-A, measuring 605 sq yds

out of 1210 sq yds and registered the sale transfer documents, inter alia, comprising of the Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will etc. The allegations are that after the property was sold, the petitioner inducted one Sh. Pradeep Bajaj in the property and gave a No Objection Certificate for getting electricity connection as an owner.

3. It is further contended that the petitioner has received rents from the tenants Mr. Pradeep Bajaj and Mr. Nirmal Singh after the sale of the property as an owner of the property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Sh. Pradeep Bajaj has been in possession of the property since 1998 and this fact has also been stated before the Investigating Officer by the said Sh. Pradeep Bajaj. It is contended that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever inducted any person after the sale of the property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that insofar as the allegation qua the receipt of rents from the tenants is concerned, the same is purely a civil matter.

6. Considering the nature of allegations, and the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 20.08.2017 and the chargesheet has already been filed. The investigation is complete. There is no ground made out for incarcerating the petitioner any further. I deem it

fit to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is granted bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not do anything which shall either prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses.

7. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 12, 2018 st