Delhi High Court
Tara Chand vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 April, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: March 27, 2019
Judgment Delivered on: April 22, 2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2674/2014
TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.Mallika
Bhatia and Mr.Anurag Sahay,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 2680/2014
ANUJ KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.Mallika
Bhatia and Mr.Anurag Sahay,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 123/2015
MADANLAL BABULAL CHOWATIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
BAIL APPLN. 2674/2014 & conn.matters Page 1 of 7
Represented by: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.Mallika
Bhatia and Mr.Anurag Sahay,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 38/2015
RAMESH KR.CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.Mallika
Bhatia and Mr.Anurag Sahay,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 119/2015
CHAMPATLAL JAIN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Ms.Mallika
Bhatia and Mr.Anurag Sahay,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for the State
Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
for complainant
BAIL APPLN. 2674/2014 & conn.matters Page 2 of 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Crl.M.A. No. 9384/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 2674/2014
Crl.M.A. No. 9391/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 2680/2014
Crl.M.A. No. 9393/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 123/2015
Crl.M.A. No. 9382/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 38/2015
Crl.M.A. No. 9392/2017 in BAIL APPLN. 119/2015
1. By these applications, the complainant seeks modification of the order
dated 5th March, 2015 whereby the petitioners/non-applicants were granted
anticipatory bail by this Court. The allegations in FIR No.313/2014 under
Sections 420/406 IPC was registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar pursuant
to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint of
respondent No.2 Hitesh Kothari are that on 20th April, 2007 Champat Lal
Babu Lal Jain a partner in M/s.Suraj Constructions Vijaywada (AP) came to
his house and represented that he was constructing a mall-cum-multiplex
'Ripple Mall' at Vijaywada and that the prices would go very high so the
complainant would earn high profits if he purchased some area in the mall.
Accordingly, for a consideration of ₹7 crores 15 lakhs the complainant was
allotted a total area of 8000 square feet and an agreement in this regard was
entered into on 20th April, 2007. The respondent No.2 paid the entire
agreement amount of ₹7 crores 15 lakhs from 20 th April, 2007 to 3rd March,
2010 and also gave a sum of ₹2 crores 38 lakhs as loan to Champat Lal
however on completion of the mall, the accused refused to transfer the space
provided ad-measuring 8000 square feet in the name of the complainant.
During the hearing of the application of Champat Lal, he filed certain
documents purported to be signed by the complainant regarding cancellation
of the agreement signed by the complainant with M/s.Suraj Constructions
Pvt. Ltd. and allotment of share to M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for a sum
of ₹9.5 crores. These documents were submitted by Champat Lal Jain are
the bone of contention because the petitioner/ complainant states that the
documents are forged and fabricated whereas private respondents claim that
they are genuine. Investigation also revealed that Hitesh Kothari had paid a
sum of ₹9 crores, 64 lakhs and 69 thousand to M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt.
Ltd. and the private respondents had issued share certificates of the said
amount in favour of the complainant whereas the complainant denied
purchasing the share certificates of M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. As noted
above, the FSL report finally stated that the questioned signatures of the
complainant matched with his specimen and admitted signatures.
2. The petitioners were granted bail for the reason and with the
following conditions:-
"24. Having considered the entire gamut of the matter as
well as the grounds of quashing petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. for setting-aside the order dated 27th October, 2014
and 3rd December, 2014, there is a merit in the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled
with the fact that the petitioners and the complainant are
related to each other and being a family dispute, in view of
undertaking given by the petitioners to join the proceedings
and to produce all the necessary documents required by the
Investigating Agency, without deciding anything on merit, I
am inclined to grant anticipatory bails to them in view of
peculiar facts and circumstances in the matter; it is directed
that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be
released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds
in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO)
and further, the said relief is being given to them, subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) In order to secure the amount and strike the balance
between the parties, at this stage, M/s Suraj
Constructions/its partners shall give the Bank Guarantee of
₹9,56,75,000/- initially for a period of three years, within
four weeks from today to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(ii) The undertaking given on behalf of M/s Suraj
Constructions by way of affidavit of one of its partners,
namely, Madanlal Babulal Chowatia is accepted to the
effect that the partners of Suraj Constructions will not
dispose of or otherwise alienate the 8000 sq. ft. of super
built up area in Ripple Mall, Vijayawada, shown in yellow
in the attached site plan which area is under the possession
and ownership of Suraj Constructions, without permission
of this Court during the pendency of the present FIR.
(iii) All the petitioners shall join the investigation and
produce the documents as required by the Investigating
Agency and shall cooperate with the agency.
(iv) The petitioners shall provide their signatures before
the IO for the purpose of comparing the same if so required
in future."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petitioners were
directed to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹9,56,75,000/- on the basis
of the purported cheating which had come to light at that stage. Later it was
revealed that the applicant not only suffered a loss because of the non-
compliance of the agreement but also forged and fabricated documents were
prepared and money purportedly given as loan was stated to be invested in
shares on account whereof also the applicant suffered serious loss. He thus
prays that the order granting bail be modified and the petitioners be directed
to deposit a further amount of ₹9,56,75,000/- before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants submits that as
noted in the investigation report the signatures of the complainant have
matched on number of questioned documents hence his claim that the share
transfer forms were forged and fabricated is not substantiated. The
petitioners/non-applicants have already furnished a bank guarantee of
₹9,56,75,000/- besides the area of 8000 square feet with 5000 square feet on
the lower ground floor and 3000 square feet marked yellow on the first floor
have not been alienated and is still in the possession and control of the
petitioners, thus the order granting bail needs no modification.
5. Supreme Court in the decision reported as (2009) 4 SCC 45 Munish
Bhasin Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) dealing with the conditions that can be
imposed while granting anticipatory bail held:
"10. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to
release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither
the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in
imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt
that the court having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious
conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section
438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected
to any irrelevant condition at all.
11. The conditions which can be imposed by the court while
granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section (2)
of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the
Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed (i) to secure the
presence of the accused before the investigating officer or
before the court, (ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course
of justice, (iii) to prevent him from tampering with the
evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating
the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the
facts before the police or court, or (iv) restricting the
movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or
to maintain law and order, etc. To subject an accused to any
other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power
conferred on court under Section 438 of the Code.
12. While imposing conditions on an accused who
approaches the court under Section 438 of the Code, the
court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and
should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing
the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no
manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under
Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or
excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code."
6. The petitioners/non-applicants have already furnished a bank
guarantee of ₹9,56,75,000/- and having not alienated or parted with the
property as directed by this Court vide order dated 5 th March, 2015, this
Court finds that any further condition by modification would be onerous and
unwarranted frustrating the grant of anticipatory bail granted to the
petitioners/non-applicants.
7. Applications are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2019
mamta
