Sangeeta Singh v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 3616/2024 SANGEETA SINGH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.Atul Kumar, Ms.Sweety Singh, Mr.Himanshu Raj and Mr.Harsh Kumar, Advocates versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr.Manoj Pant, APP for State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

O R D E R

% 07.10.2024 CRL.M.A. 30200/2024 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3616/2024 1.

An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') has been preferred on behalf of petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 381/2024 under Section 420 IPC registered at P.S. Palam Village.

2.

Issue notice. Learned APP for the State appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

3.

In brief, as per the case of prosecution, present FIR was registered on complaint of Vikas Jain who alleged that he was duped of an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- by the petitioner along with her husband on the assurance of allotment of plot measuring 100 sq.yds near Jewar Airport, Gautam Budh BAIL APPLN. 3616/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:42:42

Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is no longer a Director in the concerned company and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

5.

On the other hand, application is vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground that using similar modus operandi, several victims have been duped. He further submits that petitioner played an active role in luring the complainant for purchase of the aforesaid plot. On instructions of IO, he also submits that no plots appear to be purchased in the name of the company in respect of which the complainant paid the amount.

6.

Petitioner is involved in duping of multiple victims in sale of plots, which were never intended to be transferred to the proposed purchasers. The custody of the petitioner appears to be imperative for purpose of recovery of the amount, which has been dishonestly obtained after luring the complainant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegations, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J OCTOBER 7, 2024/v BAIL APPLN. 3616/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:42:42