Atiqur Rehman v. State ( NCT Of Delhi)

$-17 and 18 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1539/2018 ATIQUR REHMAN Represented by:

Petitioner Mr. U.A. Khan and Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Advocates.

versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) Represented by:

Respondent Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Prempal Singh, PS Bhajanpura.

Mr. Anurag Jain and Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

+ BAIL APPLN. 1540/2018 HABIBUR REHMAN Represented by:

Petitioner Mr. U.A. Khan and Mr. Shahrukh Khan, Advocates.

versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) Represented by:

Respondent Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Prempal Singh, PS Bhajanpura.

Mr. Anurag Jain and Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

ORDER

% 05.12.2018 By this petitions, the two petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 557/2016 under Section 420/34 IPG registered at PS Bhajanpura. BAIL APPLN. 1539/2018 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

< '

- \ The allegations of the complainant in the FIR in question are that he was into business with the petitioners and the petitioners failed to return his money. After the complainant pressurized the petitioners for his due amounting to ?57 lakhs, the two petitioners, namely, Atiqur Rehman and Habibur Rehman, gave cheques for ?30 lakhs to the complainant and assured him also to give a flat of ^27 lakhs being A-67, DLF Extn. 2, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, UP.

The accused person represented that the documents of the flat were with the bank and the total dues of the bank were ?7 lakhs. The complainant thus in addition to ^57 lakhs due towards the petitioners, paid a sum of t! lakhs in cash to the petitioners so that the flat could be released from mortgage dues.

The documents of transfer of the flat were prepared, however, after five months the bank took the possession as the dues were ?15 lakhs and not ^7 lakhs and dues had not been paid. Further the cheques for a sum of ?30 lakhs also could not be encashed as the same were dishonoured. Considering the nature of allegations, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Petitions are dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

DECEMBER 05, 2018 'yo'

BAIL APPLN. 1539/2018