Delhi High Court
Sh Ravinder Janghu Alias John vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 19 May, 2025
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3634/2024, CRL.M.A. 30337/2024 & 33380/2024
SH RAVINDER JANGHU ALIAS JOHN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lalit, Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with SI/SI Amit Sharma, PS Ranhola
Mr. Siddharth Pandit, Advocate for
complainant de facto
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. In furtherance of last order, it is informed by both sides that despite
last and final opportunity, the accused/applicant did not pay the balance
settlement amount. That being so, I heard learned counsel for
accused/applicant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel for
complainant de facto.
2. The accused/applicant has sought anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
856/2023 of PS Ranhola for offence under Section 420/403/34 IPC.
Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he
Bail Application 3634/2024 Page 1 of 4 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
+05'30'
entered into an agreement to sell an immovable property and accepted
earnest money to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- from complainant de facto, but
thereafter, instead of completing the sale transaction, he sold away the
subject property to a third party. But most importantly, according to the
FIR, the subject property is owned by DSIDC on which few plants were
grown and a bathroom had been constructed.
3. Learned counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through the
bayana agreement, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 4 (colly). Learned
counsel for accused/applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is
a civil dispute, given colour of criminality only to arm-twist the
accused/applicant. It is explained by learned counsel for accused/applicant
that according to the bayana receipt, the sale transaction of the subject
property had to be concluded after payment of the balance amount by
10.10.2021 and since that was not done by the complainant de facto, the
accused/applicant forfeited the earnest money and sold away the property to
a third party.
4. On the other hand, learned APP assisted by learned counsel for
complainant de facto submits that even during pendency of these
proceedings, the accused/applicant was given an opportunity to settle the
dispute but he has not paid the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- till date
despite last and final opportunity granted on last date. Further, it is
contended by learned APP that the accused/applicant is not cooperative in
Bail Application 3634/2024 Page 2 of 4 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
+05'30'
the investigation, though he is joining the investigation as and when
directed.
5. As reflected from the bayana receipt dated 11.07.2021, genuineness
whereof is not in dispute, the total sale consideration for the subject property
was Rs.57,50,000/-, out of which an earnest money of Rs.5,11,000/- was
paid and the balance was to be paid by 10.10.2021 failing which the seller
(accused/applicant) was entitled to sell away the subject property to anyone
else and to forfeit the earnest money.
6. Learned counsel for complainant de facto contended that even after
the date of execution of the bayana receipt, the complainant de facto paid
Rs.10,00,470.20 through RTGS to the accused/applicant. That payment is
reflected in the bank statements, forming part of investigation file.
7. On simplistic view, it appears to be an ordinary civil dispute where
the proposed seller forfeits the earnest money in accordance with the terms
of bayana receipt and sells away the subject property to a third party. But
there is more to it. The third party in the present case is not a stranger, but
cousin of the accused/applicant. The accused/applicant initially continued to
assure the complainant de facto that the title documents of the subject
property had been kept with his cousin to secure a loan.
8. Further, according to the FIR, the subject property is owned by
Bail Application 3634/2024 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
+05'30'
DSIDC, on which the accused/applicant had encroached upon to construct a
bathroom and grow some plants. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel
for the accused/applicant has not been able to show even a single document
out of the chain of title deeds through which the subject property was
acquired by the accused/applicant. Learned counsel for accused/applicant in
this regard submitted that the chain of title deeds was handed over by the
accused/applicant to the third party purchaser alongwith a General Power of
Attorney. But even that General Power of Attorney, copy whereof is at pdf
63, does not make even a whisper in its recitals about the manner in which
the property alleged was acquired by the accused/applicant. That lends
credence to the stand of the prosecution side that the accused/applicant had
no title over the subject property but executed bayana receipt and after
accepting earnest money from the complainant de facto, sold away the
subject property to his own cousin, that too, by way of an unregistered
General Power of Attorney.
9. In view of the aforesaid, it does not appear to be a simple civil dispute
being given a colour of criminality.
10. Therefore, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the
accused/applicant. The application is dismissed.
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.19 18:53:57
+05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 19, 2025/as
Bail Application 3634/2024 Page 4 of 4 pages
