Delhi High Court
Yash Pal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 28 November, 2018
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2003/2018
YASH PAL ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms.Sangeeta Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI
Kuldeep Bhati, P.S.Gazipur
Mr.Rajat Wadhwa, Adv. for the complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
28.11.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 262/2017 under
Section 420/120B Police Station Ghazipur, East Delhi.
2. Allegations are that the petitioner had entered into a
collaboration agreement with a third party and thereafter had sought to
transfer two flats, one of which was to be transferred to the
complainant for a total consideration of Rs.32 lakhs. It is alleged that
a sum of Rs.28 lakhs has been paid. The petitioner is alleged to have
failed to execute the documents of transfer or title or to deliver
physical possession and complainant thereafter filed a suit for specific
performance wherein it is alleged that the collaboration agreement has
been cancelled.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated. She submits that there was
never any agreement to sell in favour of the complainant nor did the
petitioner receive any money from the complainant and no document
evidencing transfer of consideration has been produced. Learned
counsel submits that money was received from the father of the
complainant who was financer in the collaboration agreement and he
along with other financers had paid a total sum of Rs.3 lakhs and
failed to pay the balance amount which they had promised to finance.
4. Learned counsel submits that the complainant has sought to
give a civil dispute the colour of a criminal complaint.
5. Petitioner was granted interim protection by order dated
25.09.2018, subject to joining investigation.
6. Learned APP under instructions submits that the petitioner did
join investigation as and when required by the IO.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case, and on perusal
of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his
furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating
Officer/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall not do anything that may
prejudice either the trial or the prosecution witnesses.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 28, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rk
