Delhi High Court
Sh. Priyank Gupta vs State on 16 May, 2019
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.05.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2866/2018
SH. PRIYANK GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Shobha Gupta, Mr. Saurav Seth, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with ASI
Prakash Vir, PS Rajinder Nagar.
Mr. Rajindra Vats, Adv. for complainant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 175/2018 under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police
Station Rajinder Nagar.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had
represented that he was owner of a property and accordingly
approached the complainant for sale of the property for a total sale
consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is alleged that the complainant had
paid Rs. 41 lakhs for the said transaction however, subsequently it
transpired that the petitioner did not have any share in the said
property.
3. There is a dispute as to whether Rs. 26 Lakhs was paid or Rs 41
Lakhs was paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent has alleged that only Rs. 26 lakhs was paid. Learned
counsel for the respondent/complainant disputes that only Rs. 26 lakhs
was paid. He submits that the receipt was executed for Rs. 41 lakhs.
Said receipt is disputed by the petitioner.
4. Parties were referred to mediation. By order dated 05.12.2018,
the petitioner was granted interim protection subject to depositing of
Rs. 26 lakhs.
5. Petitioner thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs to the
respondent to show his bonafides and deposited Rs. 9 lakhs with the
trial court.
6. Learned Addl. PP submits that the petitioner had joined
investigation whenever was so required by the Investigating Officer.
7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in
view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, 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
petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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. Petitioner shall continue to join investigation as and when
so required by the IO.
9. It is clarified that the amount of Rs. 17 lakhs paid by the
petitioner to the respondent during these proceeding and the amount
of Rs. 9 lakhs deposited by the petitioner with the trial court, shall be
subject to further orders to be passed by the trial court at the
conclusion of the trial.
10. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
11. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 16, 2019
st
