Shyam Arora v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~6 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 1770/2018 SHYAM ARORA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Dalip Kumar Chhabra, Adv.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State with SI Arvind Kumar, P.S. Vivek Vihar.

Mr.

Nitini Mehta, Adv.

for Complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 11.10.2018 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No. 1185/2015 under Sections 420/34 IPC was lodged at police station Vivek Vihar by Sunita Bansal, through her son and attorney, namely, Saurabh Bansal. She alleged in the FIR that she had purchased 75% portion of property bearing no. A-126, Yojna Vihar, Delhi from Dr. Sudhir Bajaj vide Sale Deed dated 14.06.2013 against sale consideration. She also purchased 25% portion of the said property from M/s HRG Agro Private Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 14.06.2013. She alleged that in the year 2015 she came to know that Dr. Sudhir Bajaj has again sold 75% portion of the property to one Ms. Nidhi Aggarwal vide Sale Deed dated 06.05.2015 against sale consideration.

Thus, she alleged that she was cheated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet was filed only against Dr. Sudhir Bajaj in the month of March, 2018, wherein petitioner was not named as an accused. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner alleging therein that petitioner had some financial dealings with M/s HRG Agro Private Ltd. and Dr. Sudhir Bajaj in the year 2013. It is submitted that petitioner had purchased 25% portion of the aforesaid property jointly with Onkar Singh (co-accused) from Dr. Sudhir Bajaj in the year 2013 and thereafter sold the said property to M/s HRG Agro Private Ltd. in the year 2013 itself. 25% of the property sold to M/s HRG Agro Private Ltd. by them is not in dispute.

It is further submitted that petitioner is no more required for any further investigations more so when allegations are primarily against Dr. Sudhir Bajaj.

Learned APP, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, admits that petitioner has joined the investigations and supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed.

Keeping in mind the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the

like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned police station.

Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

OCTOBER 11, 2018 ga