Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 1693/2013 & CRL.M.A. 13980/2013
KHURSHID .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K.Padhi, Advocate.
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
MDYAMIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.K.Padhi, Advocate.
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
16.12.2013
ORDER
1. The petitioners seekanticipatory bail in case FIR No. 165/2013 under Section 420 IPG PS Kanjhawala. Petitioners' counsel urged that they have no concern with the transaction in question which took place in 2009. The complaint has been filed in 2012. The petitioners did not receive any nioney - BAIL APPLN. Nos. 1693/2013 & 1699/2013 page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:6885 I from the complainant. There are no specific allegations against them in the FIR. The documents produced by the cbmplainarit are fake and fabricated, i. Bail isopposed bythe complainant and Addl. Public Prosecutor.; 2. Status report reveals that the petitioners allegedly cheated the j complainant of ? 2,25,000/- for sale ofa piece ofland which was never ! owned by them. They handed over chain of documents along with the I documents executed by one lady Salma Khatoon in favour of the complainant's wife, to the complainant and physical possession of the plot was handed over. When the complainant started raising construction on the "P plot, one Mohd. Tajudin claimed himself to be the owner ofthe said plot. When the matter was brought to the notice of the petitioners, they promised togive some other plot ortoreturn the whole amount. They took^ 70,000/frpm him on the pretext to provide another plot of bigger size. However, ' nothing was done. The petitioners got seven dates to settle the dispute with the complainant. Neither they have returned the money nor have agreed to give any plot to the complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are serious whereby they duped aninnocent complainant of hard earned money arid returned only ^ 60,000/-. It was not explained astohow and under what circumstances ^ 60,000/- weretaken by the petitioners whenthey were not owner of any specific plot. The complainant has placed on record the document executed before Panchayat whereby the petitioners had agreed to return the amount.
3. Considering the gravity ofthe offence, I find no sufficient grornid to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The bail applications are dismissed. BAILAPPLN.Nos. 1693/2013 &1699/2013 page 2 of[3] r >T Pending applications also stand disposed of.
4. It is clarified that observations made above in the order would have no impact on the merits ofthe case. S.PiGARG,J DECEMBER 16,2013/tr BAIL APPLN. Nos. 1693/2013 & 1699/2013 page 3 of[3]