Bhupender v. State Of Haryana
!
"#$%%
# &' % (
) (''
!
"#$ %
& $ & $
) (''*%+ ,-. '
(
) * + +
+ + $
,!% -.' '/ '0 1010
/0
+ $
20.210/0.-2! )&
2.324'!
)&
$
$
14 101' & & 6The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.361 dated 15.10.2020 at Police Station Sector 50 District Gurugram under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC were added later on.
The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Deepak, wherein he has alleged that he invests in properties and had purchased properties through the petitioner previously on 2-3 earlier occasions and that the said deals had been successful. It is alleged that the complainant also has financial transactions with the petitioner, who is otherwise a property dealer. It is alleged that the petitioner had introduced him to Poonam Gupta, Rajeev Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta, who represented that they have some property for sale and accordingly a deal was struck between the complainant and the said three persons and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.70 lakhs. The complainant alleged that despite payment of said amount of Rs.70 lakhs, the aforesaid persons did not execute any 'agreement to sell' and when the complainant demanded his money back, the same was not even returned to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken to be correct, the petitioner at best is a property dealer and, as such, a mediator and can be said to have introduced the complainant with Poonam Gupta, Rajeev Gupta and Sanjeev Gupta during the course of his professional dealings. Learned counsel submits that in case the land owners have committed any wrong or have cheated the complainant, the petitioner cannot be held liable in any manner. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise it is highly unbelievable that the complainant would have paid an amount of Rs.70 lakhs in cash and would not have got any agreement executed. It has further been submitted that since the co-accused, who are infact the vendors, have already been granted bail by this Court, the petitioner has a lesser role and, as such, deserves the same concession on ground of parity.
Notice of motion for 11.1.2022.
At this stage, Mr. Sameer Dewan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and accepts notice on behalf of the complainant.
/ Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since the receipt regarding the amount in question had been executed by the petitioner and infact he had later also made a statement to the effect that the amount in question had been received by him, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. It has also been submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any concession on grounds of parity.
I have considered the aforesaid submissions.
Having regard to the nature of allegations and the fact that there is no written agreement for sale of the property in question and also that the co-accused have been granted bail, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the concession of interim bail at this stage.
As such, it is ordered that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.7 - 8
$
+
$ 9
$ $ " "
!
$
&$ +
+
,! + $ 40 * &
!
$
+
+ $
+
+
$ $ :
$ $
& 9
& + &
"
$ ;
8
$ ;
+ &+ <$ $,8<$
$ +
& =
8
9
!
$
)
"
+
/ !
$ )
.
+ +
& ,!
$ ;
&$
9
&
$ 40* &
+ *
+ (
"
+
( $ $
( ;
+ <$ ,8 !
$ +
0
& (
)
14 101' $ "
"
+
& &
!
+
+ :
2-3>1?)
) $%% +
) (''. $ @ * +A !1 @ !1