Subhash Dogra v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

$~8 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2446/2017 SUBHASH DOGRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. M.L. Mahajan, Adv.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP with SI Umesh Rana, P.S. AATS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 19.12.2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated.

Petitioner has not taken any money from the complainant nor executed any Agreement to Sell. Complainant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner wherein a written statement has already been filed. Petitioner has taken a categorical plea that he had not executed the Agreement to Sell nor received any amount from the complainant. He further submits that the receipt at page no. 83 indicates that petitioner had received `75,00,000/- from himself. By placing reliance on receipt at page no. 84, it is contended that though same has been allegedly

executed on 6th November, 2012 but it indicates advance payment of `9,00,000/- allegedly made on 8th November, 2012, which is not probable. Petitioner had entered into a Collaboration Agreement with co-accused Col. Vijay Prakash Rastogi on 30th November, 2011 in respect of the subject property, thus he could not have executed the alleged Agreement to Sell in August, 2011. Agreement to Sell and the other documents are forged and fabricated documents.

Petitioner is in custody for about five months. Investigations are complete.

Charge-sheet has been filed.

Accordingly, petitioner may be released on bail.

Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2017 r.bararia