Delhi High Court
Punit Beriwala vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 25 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgement delivered on: 25.02.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2151/2016, CRL. M.A. 20402/2017 & CRL. M.A.
20403/2017
PUNIT BERIWALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Puneet Singal, Ms. Ayesha Jamal,
Mr.Lokendra Malik and Mr. Vijay Shankar,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Addl. P.P. for the State.
Mr. Ambar Qamaruddin with Mr. Tejasvi Kumar,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
1. The petitioner had sought anticipatory bail. Interim protection was
granted to him earlier. The petitioner is being investigated in C.C. No.
72/1/2014 under section 420 IPC pending with P.S. Economic Offences
Wing.
2. The allegations are that one Smt. Damayanti Devi had agreed to
purchase Flat No. D-7, Tower-B, at Property No. 6, Auribindo Marg, New
Delhi, with M/s. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,73,02,000/- (one crore seventy three lacs two thousand
only) and had paid Rs.5 lacs vide cheque no. 107822 dated 31.03.2005
BAIL APPLN. 2151/2016 Page 1 of 5
drawn on Centurion Bank Ltd., vide receipt dated 04.04.2005, and Rs.15
lacs vide cheque no. 374516 dated 27.10.2005, drawn on the same bank,
vide receipt dated 28.10.2005. She had filed a civil suit in the year 2007.
She passed away on 05.04.2010. The present complaint was filed in
February, 2011.
3. While seeking anticipatory bail from the Trial Court, the petitioner no.
1, without prejudice to his rights and contentions and in order to show his
bona fide, had moved an application for depositing Rs.20 lacs in the Court.
The said amount is stated to have been deposited. However, it is his case
that the dispute is primarily civil in nature for which Smt. Damayanati Devi
has already filed a civil suit for specific performance; that there is an
unexplained delay in filing the complaint case; that it relates to an
apprehension which arose in 2005 while the complaint was filed in 2011;
there is no criminality involved in the case and the petitioner is not required
for any further investigations; that he is a permanent resident of Delhi with
deep roots in the society and would not abscond or flee from the process of
justice or tamper with evidence, he has no criminal antecedents. He submits
that the complaint has been filed primarily with ulterior motives to extract
money from the petitioner.
4. The complainant/R-2 opposes the bail on the ground that her mother-
in-law Ms. Damayanti Devi, whose interest she inherits, has been defrauded
by the petitioner and should be prosecuted. She contends that for the
aforenoted flat, on an oral agreement Smt. Damayanti Devi had paid Rs.20
lacs, as aforementioned and receipts were issued for both the payments.
Thereafter, Smt. Damayanti Devi was asked by the seller to deposit Rs.46
lacs in cash. She preferred instead to pay the said amount by way of two
BAIL APPLN. 2151/2016 Page 2 of 5
cheques for Rs.24 lacs and Rs.21 lacs each. The cheques were never
encashed. A complaint was lodged with the Economic Offences Wing on
03.11.2009.
5. The records would show that the company M/s Vipul Infrastructure
Developers Ltd. had filed documents which clearly show that the property
had already been sold on or before 04.01.2005 to one Rishi Aggarwal, for
which payments had been received by the Company.
6. A Letter of Administration, apropos the Will of Smt. Damayanti Devi
dated 15.01.2009, has been granted. The Company has admitted, vide letter
dated 26.06.2011, to the receipt of Rs.20 lacs from the complainant's
mother-in-law. It is claimed that the current value of the flat has increased
more than five times, therefore, a clear case is established against the
petitioner- Puneet Beriwala, who is the Managing Director of the said
Company.
7. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was filed after the
filing of an application for regular bail under section 437 Cr. P.C. The
anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, inter
alia, on the ground that it could not be entertained after the filing of an
application for regular bail. The Trial Court had not found the dicta of P.V.
Narsimba Rao v. State 1997(1) CC Cases 154 applicable to this case
because the same was distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the
petitioner's application for regular bail has been dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge. However, he has now sought the anticipatory
bail.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant, relying upon the dicta of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain
BAIL APPLN. 2151/2016 Page 3 of 5
Mohd. S. Husain etc. (2008) 1 SCC 21, submits that the present application
would not be maintainable. The judgment inter alia held as under:
"28. We may also notice that the High Court itself
has refused to grant regular bail to the accused against
whom charge-sheet has been submitted. The learned
Sessions Judge also did not grant bail to some of the
accused persons. If on the same materials, prayer for
regular bail has been rejected, we fail to see any
reason as to why and on what basis the respondents
could be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
29. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court
ought not to have granted anticipatory bail to the
respondents. The impugned judgment, therefore,
cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.
The appeal is allowed."
9. During the course of the proceedings, time was taken by the parties to
explore the possibility of an amicably settlement. Nothing worthwhile came
about it. However, the petitioner has offered that, in addition to Rs.20 lacs
which was deposited by Smt. Damayanati Devi, he was willing to deposit
another sum of Rs. 1 crore, without prejudice to his rights and contentions
and primarily to show his bona fides, especially in view of the fact that Smt.
Damayanti Devi had paid only Rs.20 lacs for the purchase of the property,
while the total sale consideration was Rs.1.73 crore in the year 2004. The
petitioner undertakes to not flee from the course of justice.
10. Looking at the facts of the case, in particular, the issue that the said
flat had already been sold or promised to be sold to one Rishi Aggarwal in
January, 2005, against payments receipt by M/s. Vipul Infrastructure
Developers Ltd., while the monies for the sale of the same property were
received from M/s. Damayanti Devi three months later in March-April,
BAIL APPLN. 2151/2016 Page 4 of 5
2005, without notice to either of the parties of such transaction, the
allegations leveled against the applicant/petitioner are grave in nature.
Deposit of Rs.20 lacs would not mitigate the circumstances. Furthermore, in
terms of Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Hussain etc. (supra), the
application for anticipatory bail after dismissal of the regular bail application
would not be maintainable.
11. In view of the above, the interim order is vacated. The petition is
dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
FEBRUARY 25, 2019/acm
