Gurmeet Singh v. State Of NCT Of Delhi

$~40.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 2457/2016 GURMEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Parteek Chaturbedi & Mr. Rajesh Kalia, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP along with SI Rajpal, PS-Tilak Nagar, for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 30.11.2016 Issue notice. Mr. Mukesh Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.547/2016 registered at PS-Tilak Nagar under Section 420/ 468/ 471/ 34 IPC. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute raised by the complainant is a purely civil dispute in relation to a property transaction. The petitioner and the complainant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 18.03.2015 in respect of left side portion of third

floor with roof rights out of property bearing No.WZ-60 at Plot No.217 admeasuring 37.5 square yards situated at Gali No.4, Guru Nanak Nagar, New Delhi with common one bike parking for an amount of Rs.10,60,000/-. Under the agreement, the complainant has made payment of Rs.8,00,000/- towards earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was payable on or before 16.10.2015. According to the petitioner, the said amount was not paid by the complainant and, consequently, the agreement to sell was cancelled by the complainant vide notice dated 11.12.2015 and the earnest money forfeited. As a counterblast, the FIR has come to be registered on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant has already initiated a civil suit to enforce the agreement to sell by seeking a decree of specific performance.

To the submission of learned APP that the petitioner misrepresented that he is the absolute owner of the property, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has in his possession the original title documents of the property since the entire consideration stands paid to the attorney of the original owner, who is also the son of the original owner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Subject to the petitioner joining the investigation as and when called for by the IO, it is directed that in case of his arrest, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the IO/arresting officer. This is further subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not contact the complainant or try to influence the complainant or any other witness in the

matter.

The petition stands disposed of.

Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J NOVEMBER 30, 2016 B.S. Rohella