Delhi High Court
Harish Jasuja vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 February, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.02.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 947/2019
HARISH JASUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, F K Jha,
Sarwesh & Drishti Malhotra,
Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Raghvindra Varma, APP
for State alongwith SI Dev
Raj, PS Adarsh Nagar.
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 Harish Jasuja under
section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 95/2019 u/s. 448/380/120-B/34 IPC
PS Adarsh Nagar.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present FIR. It is submitted that the present FIR
has been registered on 31.03.2019 at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi in
Bail Appl. no. 947/2019 Page no.1 of 5
respect of part of tenanted premises of Property bearing No.A-5,
Sarai Pipal Thala Extn., Delhi-110033.
3. It is submitted that Sh. Rajesh Rana and Sh. Naresh Rana
were the owners of property in question. They had entered into an
Agreement to Sell and Purchase/Bayana of the aforesaid property
with the petitioner and his brother Sh. Sanjay Jasuja on 21.12.2018
for an amount of Rs.1,38,00,000/- (Rs. One Crore Thirty Eight Lacs
Only). A Firm namely Mittal Cuisines was occupying the part of
aforesaid property. Directors of the aforesaid Firm were involved in
electricity theft and were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lacs for
electricity consumption.
4. It is submitted that the said property was sold to wife of the
petitioner Smt. Nirmal Jasuja and Smt. Bharti Jasuja by Rajesh Rana
and Naresh Rana. Further wife of the petitioner Smt. Nirmal Jasuja
and Smt. Bharti Jasuja had also locked the premises.
5. On 25.03.2019, one of the tenant Sh. Mohit Singhal made a
complaint to the police in regard to the tenanted premises. The wife
of the applicant had moved a Criminal Writ Petition having W.P.
(Crl.) No.980/2019 before the High Court of Delhi on 01.04.2019
for redressal of her grievance i.e. unauthorized seizure of property
by SHO, P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and his accomplices. She had
also made complaint to Women Commission and Commissioner of
Police. Despite that, the applicant was arrested on 03.04.2019
without following the guidelines of Supreme Court given in Arnesh
Kumar's Case. The High Court has observed in its order dated
04.04.2019 about the conduct of the police officials of RS. Adarsh
Bail Appl. no. 947/2019 Page no.2 of 5
Nagar, Delhi and has directed the Police Commissioner to file the
status report.
6. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and
when required and it is, therefore, prayed that he be released on bail
in the event of his arrest.
7. The application is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State on
the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in
nature. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
Recovery of articles is yet to be effected from the accused persons.
The petitioner was earlier absconding and avoiding his arrest and
not cooperating with the police. Ld. APP has, therefore prayed for
dismissal of the bail application.
8. I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of the record
reveals that complainant Mohit Singhal and his partner Sarthak
Mittal had entered into a rent agreement deed for 5 years for a
monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- per month with landlord Sh. Rajesh
Rana S/o. Late Sh. Randhir Singh Rana R/o 72D, Majlis Park,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi in respect of first floor of property No. A-5,
First Floor, near ICICI Bank, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and started their
business. On 17.05.17, another rent agreement in respect of open
space of roof of second floor of property No. A-S, near ICICI Bank,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi was executed between Naresh Rana (co-owner
of property) and complainant. In this space, complainant opened a
restaurant in the name & style of Shahi Kitchen Food Parlour.
Complainant Mohit Singhal also got installed two electric meters in
Bail Appl. no. 947/2019 Page no.3 of 5
his name. On 09.12.18, a fire broke out in the electricity meters but
the same was extinguished. On 21.03.19, complainant received a
legal notice from counsel of Sh. Naresh Rana seeking possession of
the property and demand of rent. Record further reveals that on
25.03.19 complainant came to know that some unknown persons
were removing their Sign Boards from the property in question. He
reached at the spot and found that some persons were removing their
Sign Boards from the property. On questioning they replied that
Sanjay Bansal & Tarun Gupta had directed them to remove these
boards. Thereafter, he made a PCR call. He checked his rented
premises and found that the locks of room at first floor and second
floor were changed and one room at second floor was bolted from
outside, which was not locked. He had also checked his room and
found that his one Computer, Printer, 5 Gas Cylinder, Grinder
Machine, 2 Coolers, 1 Tandoor, 5 Tables, 6 Chairs, Idols of Ram &
Krishan, Kitchen Setup, Kitchen Crockery, Dining Table, Dining
Crockery, 32 Inch LED TV, CCTV Cameras, documents & bills etc.
were missing.
9. During enquiry it was revealed that Agreement to Sell &
Purchase/Bayana was executed between the landlord i.e. Rajesh
Rana and his brother Naresh Rana with purchasers Harish Jasuja
(petitioner) and his brother Sanjay Jasuja on 21.12.18 and thereafter
landlord Rajesh Rana & Naresh Rana had executed Sale Deed in
favour of Smt. Nirmal Jasuja W/o Harish Jasuja (petitioner) & Smt.
Bharti Jasuja W/o Sanjay Jasuja (brother of petitioenr) on 31.03.19.
On 31.03.19, the above said case was registered and on 03.04.19,
Bail Appl. no. 947/2019 Page no.4 of 5
accused persons namely Rajesh Rana, Naresh Rana, Sanjay Jasuja,
Sanjay Bansal and Tarun Kumar Gupta were arrested in the case and
efforts were made to recover the case property but the accused
persons did not cooperate and case property could not be recovered.
10. Perusal of record reveals that recovery of stolen articles is yet
to be effected, locks of the tenanted premises were changed, certain
goods of the complainant like Computer, Printer, 5 Gas Cylinder,
Grinder Machine, 2 Coolers, 1 Tandoor, 5 Tables, 6 Chairs, Idol of
Ram & Krishan, Kitchen Setup, Kitchen Crockery, Dining Table,
Dining Crockery, 32 Inch LED TV, CCTV Cameras, documents &
bills etc. are missing. Though earlier interim protection was granted
to the petitioner, however, the case property could not be recovered
as the petitioner did not co-operate during investigation. In view of
above facts appearing on record and nature of offence and the fact
that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery
of articles, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The
anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
Amit
Bail Appl. no. 947/2019 Page no.5 of 5
