Madhav Jha & ANR v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.11.2018 + MADHAV JHA & ANR ..... Petitioners versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr. R.C. Prakash, Mr. P.S. Tripathi, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Vani Vyas and Mr. Amit, Advs. For the Respondent:

Mr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for the State with SI Mohit Mr. Hemant Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Khare, Advs. for complainant CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

30.11.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 422/2017 under Sections 448/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Kapashera, Delhi.

2.

The allegations are that the complainant had purchased a property from one Keshav Jha son of Smt. Baikunthi Devi and paid the entire sale consideration in cash. Thereafter, after some time he

found that the locks of the subject property were broken by the petitioners who are the other son and grandson of Smt. Baikunthi Devi and they had trespassed into his property and removed his belongings. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated and he submits that Smt. Baikunthi Devi who is admittedly owner of the subject property had entered into an agreement with Mr. Keshav Jha and also executed a power of attorney in order to further sell the property, however, as the sale consideration was not received the power of attorney was revoked. He further submits that the agreement in favour of complainant was not finally completed as the sale consideration was not paid by the complainant to Mr. Keshav Jha. He further submits that the property was rented out by Smt. Baikunthi Devi and the complainant never came into possession of the subject property. 4.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the tenant had attorned to the complainant and had started paying him the rent. 5.

Petitioners were granted interim protection by order dated 15.02.2018, subject to their joining investigation. 6.

Learned Addl. PP, under instructions from the IO submits that petitioners had joined investigation and the investigation is complete qua role of the petitioners. He further submits that the statement of Mr. Keshav Jha has been recorded who has though stated that though

there was an agreement to sell with the complainant but same was not performed as the complainant had not paid entire sale consideration. 7.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and on perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

8.

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioners on bail on their furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.

9.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 10.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. NOVEMBER 30, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J 'rs'