In Bail Appln. 3526/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail in property fraud case, says accused misled investigator & court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [01-12-2023]

feature-top

Read Order: Virender Dhaka V. State Though Sho Fatehpur Beri

 

Chahat Varma

 

New Delhi, December 6, 2023: In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by an accused in a property fraud case, noting that the accused misled the investigating officer and the court by initially denying the execution of the agreement to sell and signing relevant registers. The Court found that during the investigation, it became evident that the applicant had received an amount, apparently as consideration for the sale, but had denied executing any agreement or signing any register.

 

In the said case, the present application was filed on behalf of accused/applicant, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

 

The factual matrix of the case was that the complainant, had lodged a complaint alleging that he and the accused had entered into an agreement for the sale of a property in New Delhi. The agreement stipulated the sale of a property for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,000. The complainant had made an advance payment of Rs.7,30,000, and the remaining Rs.5,20,000 was to be paid after the completion of the first floor. The accused, however, failed to provide possession and demanded the balance payment. The complaint alleged that despite fulfilling the full payment as per the agreement, the accused did not provide possession of the property for eight years. The complaint asserted that the accused had induced the complainant to make the purchase, causing wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to the complainant. The accused was also accused of making threats to the complainant.

 

The defence argued that the accused was falsely implicated, highlighting an unexplained delay in the complaint and asserting that the case was an abuse of legal process. The defence contended that the essential elements of the offenses were not established and no custodial interrogation was needed.

 

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail, citing a notarized agreement to sell and emphasized the accused's lack of cooperation during the investigation. The prosecution asserted the need for custodial interrogation to obtain specimen signatures and pointed out financial transactions between the complainant and the accused.

 

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, had initially failed to cooperate with the investigation and joined it only after receiving interim protection from the Sessions Court. The accused also denied entering into any agreement to sell with the complainant and signing relevant documents, claiming the property in question as his residential house. However, the investigating officer verified the agreement to sell, finding it genuine. The notary's statement and records supported the authenticity of the agreement. Additionally, it was revealed that the complainant had transferred Rs. 3.8 lakhs to the accused's bank account, which the accused admitted receiving without providing a clear explanation for the purpose.

 

Thus, the bench opined that the accused had misled the investigating officer and the court. The bench further observed that the accused offered to return the money during the investigation, but the purpose for receiving the money remained unexplained.

 

Upon considering the overall facts and the conduct of the accused/applicant, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary to obtain his signatures and confront him with registers and documents. Therefore, the Court held that no grounds for granting anticipatory bail were established.

 

Accordingly, the present bail application was dismissed.

Add a Comment