Delhi High Court
Rajesh Goyal vs The State (N.C.T Of Delhi) on 13 March, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 21.01.2020
% Pronounced on :13.03.2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 2338/2019
RAJESH GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Kumar and Ms. Nikita
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the
State with SI S.K. Jha, PS Sarai
Rohilla.
Mr. Dhruv Singh, Advocate for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
CRL.M.A.36124/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2338/2019
1. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C on behalf
of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 22/2019
under Sections 420/468/471/506/406 IPC registered at Police Station
Sarai Rohilla.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a
property bearing No. B-1498/1 from one Ms. Krishna Chauhan on
04.10.2011 in his name and in the name of his wife and daughter.
Thereafter the petitioner executed a bayana receipt on 17.06.2013 in
favour of complainant for a sum of Rs.61 Lakh in regard to upper
floor of B-1498/1 admeasuring 80 sq. yards. The complainant paid a
sum of Rs.5 Lakh as bayana and the remaining amount of Rs. 56 Lakh
was to be paid before 17.06.2014.
3. The complainant further made payment of Rs. 25 Lakh on
14.07.2013. After receiving the payment of Rs. 30 Lakh, complainant
had taken the possession of the said portion of the property and is
still in the possession of the same.
4. It is alleged that when the complainant asked the petitioner to
execute the documents and accept the balance amount, he lingered on
the matter on one pretext or the other and on enquiries, it was
revealed that the petitioner was not the owner of the said property on
the date of bayana receipt, civil litigation qua the property was
pending and it was booked by the MCD for demolition due to
unauthorized construction.
5. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for
the State and have also perused the status report filed by the state.
6. It is urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is the owner of the property alongwith his wife and
daughter. He further urged that the complainant has given a criminal
colour to a civil dispute. He further urged that the complainant was not
ready and willing to purchase the property by paying the balance
amount and he has falsely registered the present FIR against the
petitioner. It is further urged that the petitioner has already refunded a
sum of Rs. 10 Lakh to the complainant and is ready to refund the
balance amount of Rs. 20 Lakh after the vacation of the premises in
question which is in the possession of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that
the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature
and the property when sold was not free from dispute and
encumbrances. He further urged that the petitioner has concealed the
fact that the property was booked by the MCD for demolition on
account of unauthorized construction.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner alongwith the bail application
has filed the copy of the registered sale deed of the property in
question and the perusal of the same shows that the property in
question has been jointly purchased by the petitioner alongwith his
wife and daughter from Ms. Krishna Chauhan, so the petitioner is one
of the co-owner of the property in question, therefore, it cannot be
said that there is any cloud over the ownership. Even otherwise, the
petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 10 Lakh to the complainant
out of the total amount of Rs. 30 Lakh received by him from the
complainant. During the course of the arguments the counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also ready to pay the
remaining amount of Rs. 20 Lakh to the complainant but the same was
not acceptable to the complainant.
9. It is also a matter of fact that the complainant is in possession
of the property in question. As per the status report, the petitioner has
also joined the investigation and there is not even a single averment
in the status report that he has not co-operated in the investigation.
Therefore, in these circumstances, no custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is required, the bail application is, therefore, allowed and it
is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one
surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO
concerned. However, the petitioner is directed to join the
investigation as and when called by the IO. The bail application is
disposed of accordingly.
10. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression
of any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Order Dasti.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
MARCH 13, 2020
Sumant
