Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anubhav vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139232
CRM-M-23736-2024 1
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-23736-2024
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
Anubhav
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Varun Lal, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG Haryana
Mr. Abhimanyu Batra, Advocate
for the complainant
KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)
1. Apprehending arrest in FIR No.76 dated 03.04.2017, under Sections
120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 56,
Gurugram, Haryana, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Succinct factual narrative relevant for the disposal of the instant
petition is that a complaint was submitted by Anju-complainant alleging therein
that her husband was working as Junior Warrant Officer in Air Force from 1983 to
2003. In December 2006, husband of the complainant came into contact with one
Ishpal Bhardwaj, who represented himself as retired corporal from Indian Air
Force. Ishpal Bhardwaj informed that he was developing a society in the name of
Sunehra Apna Ghar and he offered one 3 BHK flat measuring 1440 square feet for
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139232
a sum of Rs. 40 lacs. Initially 10% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 4 lacs was paid.
Consequently, total amount Rs. 37,50,000/- had been deposited by the
complainant. Share certificate, allotment letter and L Form were issued. However,
even after lapse of 8-9 years, no construction work was started.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. The FIR has been registered after an
inordinate delay of almost 4 years from the date of commission of the offence
alleged to have been committed by father of the accused. He further submits that
the petitioner is 31 years of age and the police authorities are making the petitioner
a scapegoat after the death of his father. The petitioner was 15 years of age at the
time of alleged offence i.e. in the year 2008. Learned counsel further submits that
the accused Ishpal died on 26.01.2019 and the proceedings qua him were dropped.
He further submits that the police filed challan on 22.06.2020 and no such offence
is made out against the petitioner, however, it was mentioned in the charge sheet
that arrest of the petitioner and one Sh. Sandeep was yet to be effected and
additional challan will be filed after the arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009
titled as Md. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, decided on
04.09.2009.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the accused Jagbir
stated that the petitioner obtained around Rs. 74 lacs in the above mentioned
account from around 16-17 persons on the pretext of giving flats in Sunehra Apna
Ghar Society and further, the petitioner transferred Rs. 21 lacs from the said
account to his personal account No. 2711924989 (Kotak Mahindra Bank). The
petitioner Anubhav got printed the share certificates, letterheads and the new
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139232
proceeding books of the society in which he fraudulently notes the proceedings
pertaining to the society. Accused Jagbir further stated that the allotment letter,
possession letter, building plan, sanctioned plan, bye laws and other documents of
the society were with the petitioner and by showing these documents, the petitioner
obtained money from the victims in the above mentioned account no.
087088700000220 of the society. He further submits that the accused Jagbir was
produced before learned trial Court on 31.08.2024 and his police remand was
obtained for two days. The investigation of the present case is going on. The
persons in whose accounts the money was transferred from the above mentioned
account are also yet to be joined in the investigation.
5. He further submits that the role and evidence against the petitioner
Anubhav in the present case is that he had got opened the account no.
087088700000220 in Yes Bank in the name of Sunehra Apna Ghar EWS Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and made accused Jagbir as the signatory.
The petitioner used to conduct the transactions in the account of Sunehra Apna
Ghar EWS Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and the mobile no.
9205725799 belonging to the petitioner was registered in the said account. The
petitioner used to conduct net banking through the said mobile number Moreover,
he had entered into a MOU dated 19.12.2020 with Deepak Kumar and Hemant
Bhagat regarding plot no. 63, Sector-55, Gurugram total area 4003.5 sq. mtrs.
regarding sale of Sunehra Apna Ghar Co-operative Group Housing Society for Rs.
50.20 crores and he had obtained Rs. 59,25,000/- through cash and cheque,
whereas, the petitioner Anubhav was not having any right of selling the said
society.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139232
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that after accused duped
the husband of the complainant for Rs. 37.50 lacs the share certificate, allotment
letter and L Form were issued. However, even after the lapse of 8-9 years, no
construction took place at the site. He further submits that the investigation was
initially conducted by SI Rajesh. During the course of investigation, the relevant
record was collected and taken into police possession. On 20.05.2017, the
production warrants of accused Ishpal Bhardwaj and Amit Kumar were issued by
the learned Court. He further submits that the accused Ishpal Bhardwaj and Amit
Kumar were arrested in the present case on 22.05.2017. Their disclosure
statements were recorded and accused Ishpal Bhardwaj got recovered the relevant
documents on 24.05.2017, which were taken into police possession.
7. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8. There are serious allegations leveled against the petitioner.
Accordingly, to unearth the true dimension of the alleged crime, this Court does
not deem it appropriate to interfere in the matter so as to grant the concession of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
9. The petition is dismissed.
(KIRTI SINGH)
21.10.2024 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
