Delhi High Court
Deepak Nanda @ Vicky Nanda vs The State Of Delhi on 17 October, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17.10.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 2623/2019 & Crl. M. A. 38433/2019
Deepak Nanda @ Vicky Nanda ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Alok, Ms. Aanchal
Budhiraja and Deepanshu
Gupta, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr G.M.Farooqui,
APP for State alongwith
Insp. Ravi Kant, PS
Mahendra Park.
Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Adv.
for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed on behalf of the petitioner Deepak Nanda @ Vicky
Nanda under section 438 Cr.P.C. r/w. section 482 CrPC in FIR No.
0357/19 u/s. 406/420/120-B IPC.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.1
implicated in the present FIR. The petitioner is doing the business of
fruits at New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. One Mohan Lal, who
was the original allottee of the shop bearing no. B-972, New Subzi
Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, had executed a Conveyance Deed dated
05.10.2011, in favour of one Leela Kishan and Krishan Lal. On the
basis of said Conveyance Deed Leela Kishan and Krishan Lal
became the co-owners and co-sharer in respect of the said shop. It is
submitted that Krishan Lal had transferred his half share in respect
of the said shop in favour of the petitioner. In this regard Krishan
Lal had also executed a registered Sale-deed dated 02.05.2019 in
favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said Leela
Krishan was having friendly relations with the petitioner and he had
taken a friendly loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five lacs) from
the petitioner for his legal necessities. The said Leela Krishan has
executed an agreement dated 28.05.2019 in which he has admitted
the fact of having received Rs. 25,00,000/- from the petitioner. Leela
Krishan has also acknowledged the fact that he is having half share
in respect of the said shop. He has further acknowledged the fact
that he has handed over the physical and vacant possession of half
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.2
share in respect of the said share to the petitioner. It is also admitted
by Sh. Leela Krishan that in case he is unable to refund the amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of three months
i.e. upto 27.08.2019, then he (Leela Krishan) after accepting a
further sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- from the petitioner, shall execute a
sale-deed in his favour. It is further submitted that Leela Krishan at
the time of execution of agreement dated 28.05.2019 had also
handed over three filled up cheques without date to the petitioner.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that complainant
Virender Tuteja and Ashish @ Ashu are the property dealers of New
Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. They have connections with police
officials and politicians and deals in the transactions in respect of
the disputed properties. The complainant and one Ashish @ Ashu
came to know that Krishan Lal and Leela Kishan have some
financial dispute and differences relating to the business and
regarding the said shop. Complainant and Ashish @ Ashu in
collusion with each other and with the help of one Tilu Tajpur and
his Gang are giving threats to the petitioner. Lot of pressure was put
on the petitioner to vacate the shop with the help of some wrestlers.
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.3
Since Leela Krishan has failed to repay the amount of Rs.
25,00,000/-, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay balance
amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- to Sh. Leela Krishan. However, Leela
Krishan has not turned up to accept Rs. 16,00,000/- from the
petitioner and to execute the sale-deed. On 04.09.2019, the
petitioner has instituted a civil suit for specific performance of
agreement dated 28.05.2019 & 28.08.2019 and Permanent
Injunction against Leela Krishan, complainant Virender Tuteja and
Ashish @ Ashu before Ld. District Judge, North District, Rohini
Courts. The Ld. ADJ, Sh. Shivaji Anand, North District, Rohini has
issued notice to all the respondents for 11.12.2019 and granted ex-
parte ad-interim injunction and also directed the parties to maintain
status quo order in respect of the suit property i.e. undivided half
share in respect of the shop bearing no. B-972, New Subzi Mandi,
Azadpur, Delhi.
5. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
on 05.09.2019, 15-20 unknown persons had entered into the shop of
the petitioner illegally and made attempt to unlawfully occupy the
said shop. Though the complaint was made to the police but no
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.4
action has been taken in this regard. It is submitted that the
petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required and
in these circumstances, it is prayed that petitioner be granted
anticipatory bail/ interim protection to join the investigation and
SHO/IO be directed to release the petitioner in the event of his
arrest.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
following case law in support of his contentions:-
i) Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1
SCC 684;
ii) Samarat Singh Nirula & Ors. v. State of NCT of
Delhi, 2015 (220) DLT 583;
iii) Jagdish Nautiyal v. State, Bail Appl. No. 1317/2012
7. I have gone through the above case law. There is no
disagreement with the proposition of law laid down therein.
However, the above judgments are distinguishable on the basis of
facts and circumstances stated therein.
8. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP
for the State on the ground that the allegations against the applicant/
accused are serious in nature. Petitioner is not joining the
investigation. NBWs have been issued against him. There are clear
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.5
allegations of cheating against him. The investigation is still in
progress and at initial stage. The petitioner is not cooperating with
the investigating officer. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of
the bail application.
8. I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the FIR
reveals that the same was registered by complainant Sh. Virender
Tuteja. He has stated that in March, 2019 petitioner Deepak Nanda
@ Vicky Nanda has approached him with malafide intention to
purchase the shop in question by stating that the shop will be
available at a price less than the market price and possession will be
immediately handed over to him. The petitioner had arranged a
meeting with Krishan Lal and Leela Kishan and told that they are
owners of the shop. Both of them had assured that the shop is free
from all type of encumbrances like mortgage etc. Deal of the said
shop was finalized for a consideration of Rs. Two Crore & Ten Lacs
only and Rs. Thirty Lacs were paid as earnest money on 11.03.2019
to the petitioner and his co-accuseds Krishan Lal and Leela Krishan
The petitioner was asked to give further amount so that possession
can be handed over to him in the said month itself. The petitioner
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.6
had, thereafter, further given a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- as a part of
consideration in five instalments running from 19th March, 2019. He
had thereafter asked Krishan Lal and Leela Kishan to execute the
sale-deed but they did not turn up before the Registrar on the date
fixed. Feeling aggrieved he visited the said shop and came to know
that the petitioner Deepak Nanda @ Vicky Nanda is in actual
physical possession of the said shop and claimed himself to be the
owner of the same. He has submitted that all the three accused
persons in well pre planned criminal conspiracy has cheated him and
misappropriated his hard earned money. Thus, as per the allegations
appearing on record, the petitioner along with other co-accuseds has
prima facie cheated the complainant for an amount of Rs.
90,00,000/-. Case is at the initial stage of investigation. The
petitioner is not joining the investigation. His custodial interrogation
is required to recover the cheated amount. No grounds for
anticipatory bail are, therefore, made out. The anticipatory bail
application along with pending application is, therefore, dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
OCTOBER 17, 2019/Amit
Bail Appl. no. 2623/2019 Page no.7
