Sameer Gupta v. The State
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SAMEER GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through:
Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 28.03.2016 1.
By way of this application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR no.1012/15 which has been registered at PS Farsh Bazar, under section 420 IPC.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been arrested in this case for the reason that he could not arrange finance for the intended purchaser.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement to sale filed along with this petition which reads as under:
"the First party shall be bound to get the loan against the said Property upto `10,00,000/- within the said fixed period to the second party otherwise deal will be considered as cancelled or received amount will be refunded along with `2,00,000/- penalty by the first party to the second party". 4.
It has been further contended that the petitioner is in custody for about
two and half months and so far as the complainant is concerned, at the stage of execution of agreement to sale with the complainant on 29.12.2014 there was no cheating as the property was bonafide sold under the said agreement. 5.
It is further submitted that the subsequent purchaser of the said property could have claimed the offence of cheating being committed and not the present complainant. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 6.
On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of one unit in property no.21-C measuring 50sq. Yard situated in East Arjun Nagar, Lehari Colony, Delhi. As per the said agreement out of the total sale consideration of `17.5 lacs, payment of `8 lacs was made to the petitioner through two cheques and payment of `50,000/- was made in cash and the balance amount of `9.50 lacs was to be paid to the petitioner up till 10th October, 2015. However, before the said date could reach, the petitioner entered into another agreement for sale of the same property with Smt. Paramjeet Kaur on 16.02.2015 i.e. during the period the agreement for sale with the complainant was alive and the time to make the remaining payment was available to him upto 10.10.2015. 7.
In the status report, it is mentioned that both the agreements entered into by the petitioner in respect of same property have been seized and sent to FSL for expert, Rohini, charge sheet in this case has already been filed. 8.
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that just because the petitioner failed to arrange finance of `10 lacs he has been falsely involved in a criminal case, does not find favour with me for the simple reason that in respect of the same unit while the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sale on 29.12.2014 and had also received `8 lacs out of total sale consideration of `17.5 lacs, within two months of entering into first
agreement with the complainant, he entered into another agreement for sale of the same property thereby allegedly cheating not only the first purchaser but also the second purchaser as the said agreement was allegedly entered into when the first agreement with the complainant was in existence. 9.
Taking into consideration the manner in which the petitioner had been cheating innocent buyers who were parting with their hard earned money in the hope of getting shelter over their head, needs to be viewed seriously. 10.
The bail application is hereby dismissed.
11.
Any observations made herein will not be deemed to be an expression on merits of the case.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
MARCH 28, 2016 'afa'