Delhi High Court
Ramesh Kakar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 8 January, 2020
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.01.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 1229/2019
RAMESH KAKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Ld.
Advocate with Mr. Rajinder
Pal Singh and Mr. Anshul
Mittal, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
APP for State.
Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. D.K.Yati,
Mr. Sahib Malhotra and Mr.
Ajay Khurana, Advocates 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 Ramesh Kakar under
section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.in FIR No.
537/2018 u/s. 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh.
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.1 of 8
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated. He is a senior citizen, aged about 61 years.
3. It is submitted that complainant Ajay Khurana has lodged the
present FIR on the basis of false story and on fabricated documents
dated 05.01.2017 i.e. Agreement to Sell prepared by him on a blank
signed paper. Ld. Counsel has submitted that it is alleged against
the petitioner that during the period of demonetization, the
complainant had given Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash for purchase of
property in question against total consideration amount of Rs. 2
Crore. It is submitted that at that time it was impossible to pay an
amount of Rs. 90,00,000/-in cash. In fact, the complainant is in the
business of financing money namely M/S Honey Portfolio and
complainant had taken signed cheques and is misusing the same to
extort money now.
4. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that it is
reflected from the status report that the stamp paper on which the
agreement to sell has been made was purchased by the complainant
Mr. Ajay Khurana. However, the stamp paper vendor who was
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.2 of 8
examined in this regard has stated that he does not keep any separate
record as to who has purchased the stamp paper. Statement of one
of the witness to the agreement to sell namely Sh. Satinder Pal
Narula has also been recorded. The said agreement to sell was
shown to him. He has clearly stated that he was a regular visitor to
the company namely Honey Portfolio. One day, the complainant
had called him in his office and asked him to sign on a paper stating
that he was getting his car transferred and he required his reference
for the same. He had signed in good faith having no knowledge of
the said documents. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, argued
that in fact, there is no such agreement to sell as alleged and
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case in order to
extort money. It is further submitted that petitioner was first
granted interim protection vide order dated 31.05.2019 and
thereafter the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre. Later on,
the interim protection was granted to the petitioner on the basis of
settlement.
5. It is further submitted that there is an apprehension that police
may arrest the petitioner in present FIR bearing no. 537/2018 who is
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.3 of 8
innocent and falsely implicated. He is ready to join the
investigation as and when required and in these circumstances, it is
prayed that he be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his
arrest.
6. The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP
for the State and Ld. Sr. Counsel for the complainant on the ground
that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the
alleged amount. Ld. APP has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
anticipatory bail application.
7. I have considered the rival submissions. Complainant Ajay
Khurana had filed a complaint on 24.12.2018 at PS Karol Bagh
alleging that petitioner Ramesh Kakar and his son Akhil Kakar
persuaded him to purchase property bearing no. A-4/73, Priyarshini
Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 2
Crores registered in the name of petitioner Ramesh Kakar.
Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs in five instalments against
receipts and an Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2017 was executed
between the complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar. It was also
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.4 of 8
decided that rest of the amount will be paid on or before 15.05.2017.
However later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that
the property in question does not belong to the petitioner and
accordingly, the present FIR bearing no. 537/2018 was registered.
During the course of investigation, it was found that the alleged
property does not belong to any of the accused persons.
8. The issue of grant of interim protection raised by Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner has already been decided by this court
vide a detailed order dated 18.12.2019 in which it was observed that
after the order dated 31.05.2019, granting interim protection, the
matter was taken up on 02.08.2019 and 27.08.2019. The case was
settled in Mediation Centre and it was reflected in the order dated
27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order was continued.
The said order dated 27.08.2019 runs as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
settlement has been arrived between the parties
for an amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-, and first
instalment is to be paid on 16.11.2019. Copy has
been given to learned APP.
Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the
same.
List on 08.01.2020.
Interim order to continue."
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.5 of 8
9. Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably
resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at
between complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar. However,
terms and conditions of the above settlement deed were not adhered
to. The relevant para 5 of the settlement deed runs as under:-
"that the first party along with his Advocate shall
appear before the Hon'ble Delhi High court at the
time of the hearing/s on the anticipatory bail
applications of party of Second Part and his son
namely Akhil Kakar, bearing Bail Application no.
1229/2019 and Bail Application no. 990/2019,
pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and
listed for hearing on 27.08.2019 and both the
parties will make joint request to Hon'ble court to
extend the interim protection granted to party of
Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar on
their anticipatory bail applications for any date
after 16.11.2019 i.e. date meant for First
instalment of above settlement amount. On
clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs.
30,00,000/-; both the parties shall pray before the
hon'ble High court to grant anticipatory bail to
Party to Second Part Mr. Ramesh Kakar and his
son namely Akhil Kakar in connection with FIR
No. 537/2018 under Section 420/34 IPC
registered at PS Karol Bagh."
10. Thus, as per the settlement dated 24.08.2019, it was agreed
that on clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/- both
the parties shall pray to the court to grant anticipatory bail to
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.6 of 8
petitioner and his son Akhil Kakar. Since petitioner has not adhered
to the terms and conditions of the settlement deed, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner was withdrawn vide order dated
18.12.2019.
11. So far as contention of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
amount could not have been paid in cash during demonetization is
concerned, the same cannot be decided at this stage of bail when the
investigation is still in progress. According to Ld. APP, the
complainant has receipts regarding payment of the said amount. As
per status report filed by the investigating agency, custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the alleged
amount. It has further come on record that petitioner and other co-
accused are not the actual owner of the property in question. The
contention of Ld. Counsel that statement of one of the witness to
agreement to sell Sh. Satinder Pal Singh demolishes the prosecution
version also cannot be accepted at this stage for the reason that
agreement to sell has to be examined as a whole. Prime facie, it
bears the signature of both the parties and there are no reasons to
doubt the authenticity of the same at the stage of bail. Moreover, it
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.7 of 8
is also surprising that though the petitioner has challenged the
genuineness of agreement to sell and has alleged it to be forged and
fabricated but even at the same time he has entered into a settlement
deed dated 24.8.2019 regarding the present FIR which is based upon
agreement to sell. Though, the petitioner has backed out from the
said settlement stating that it was signed under coercion, however,
as stated earlier, at this stage, a mini trial cannot be conducted to
find out whether the Agreement to sell is forged or fabricated or
settlement deed was signed under coercion.
12. In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the fact
that complainant has been cheated for a huge amount and the
petitioner after the settlement has backed out from the same and
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the
amount, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The
anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands
disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
JANUARY 8, 2020
Ak
Bail Appl. no. 1229/2019 Page no.8 of 8
