Trilok Chand Chaudhary v. State Govt NCT of Delhi

1. The applicant Trilok Chand Choudhary had preferred the present application seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 71/2022, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The applicant vide order dated 19.12.2024 was granted regular bail by the Predecessor Bench. In the said order, it was also inter alia recorded and observed as under:

3. Thus, it was noted by the Predecessor Bench that the applicant had deposited a sum of ₹2 crores before this Court to demonstrate his bona fides, and had also expressed no objection to release of the said amount in favour of the victim. However, such release was made subject to the condition that the victim would furnish an undertaking to return the amount in case the applicant succeeded in trial, and would also disclose details of a property owned by him which would not be alienated or encumbered without permission of the learned Trial Court.

4. It is not in dispute that the applicant was released on regular bail pursuant to the aforesaid order. However, the directions relating to release of the amount in favour of the complainant, subject to the complainant furnishing details of a property owned by him which he would not alienate during pendency of trial, are still pending consideration before this Court.

5. It is pertinent to note that in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2024, the complainant/respondent no. 2 had filed an affidavit dated 24.12.2024 claiming co-ownership in property bearing no. 60A, C-5 Lane, Central Avenue, Khanpur, New Delhi. However, on 14.01.2025, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant had brought to the notice of this Court that the property mentioned in the affidavit neither belonged to nor was owned by the complainant. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had submitted that the complainant had been residing in the said property. Accordingly, this Court had directed the Investigating Officer concerned to verify the ownership status of the property.

6. Thereafter, a status report dated 10.02.2025 was filed before this Court wherein it was informed that though the complainant had been residing in the said property along with his family members, the document produced by him in relation to the property was only an agreement to sell dated 18.08.1992 concerning agricultural land situated at khasra no. 212, Village Khanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, allegedly executed in his favour by one Sh. S.S. Duggal. The complainant had also furnished documents such as Aadhaar Card, telephone bills etc. reflecting the address as 60A, Sainik Farms, Khanpur, Delhi. However, the agreement to sell was sent for verification to the office of SDM (Hauz Khas), which supplied a certified copy of khatauni showing the land to be in the name of Sh. S.S. Duggal. Further verification conducted from the office of Sub- Sainik Farms had not even been registered. It was also reported that two disputes concerning the said property were pending.

7. Thereafter, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant had also drawn attention of this Court to an affidavit filed by the complainant in an execution petition pending before the Saket District Courts, wherein the complainant had himself stated that no sale deed or conveyance deed existed in his favour qua the said property. It was thus argued that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana: JT 2011 (12) SC 654, the complainant could not claim ownership solely on the basis of an agreement to sell.

8. On the other hand, the complainant had submitted before this Court that the property had been transferred to him through the agreement to sell dated 18.08.1992 and that he had been in peaceful possession thereof and residing therein along with his family members since 1992. It was also submitted that though the property had earlier been attached pursuant to judicial orders, the said attachment had subsequently been revoked vide order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court- 05), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi, which order forms part of the record. The complainant had also undertaken before this Court to furnish an indemnity bond, as and when directed by this Court.

9. Subsequently, on 27.02.2026 respondent no. 2/complainant placed on record an affidavit dated 26.02.2026, of one Sh. Manoj Doomra as surety on behalf of complainant, for release of the amount of ₹2 crores. In the said affidavit, Sh. Manoj Doomra, resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, stated that he was a friend of the complainant, Jaswant Kumar Srivastava, and had furnished details of his property, i.e. M16, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Haridwar, Uttarakhand, the market value whereof was stated to be ₹4 crores (approximately). He further undertook not to dispose of or create any encumbrance upon the said property during pendency of trial or till further orders passed by this Court.

10. By way of order dated 27.02.2026, this Court had directed verification of the documents furnished in this regard.

11. Pursuant thereto, the learned APP has filed a verification report dated 28.04.2026, stating that notice had been issued to the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Haridwar, Uttarakhand seeking verification of the property as well as its present valuation. As per the reply received, the ownership of the property stands in the names of Sh. Manoj Doomra and Smt. Shashi Doomra, and the title documents were found to be genuine and duly verified. However, the present valuation of the property, as per the applicable Collector circle rates, was reported to be ₹1.14 crores (approximately).

12. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has also filed written submissions dated 30.04.2026 in response thereto, contending that the valuation of about ₹1.14 crores is substantially lower than the amount of ₹2 crores sought to be released in favour of the complainant. It is further argued that the property in question is not owned by the complainant himself, despite the condition imposed in the order dated 19.12.2024 requiring furnishing of details of a property owned by the complainant. Instead, the complainant is now seeking to rely upon a property belonging to a third party by way of surety. It is also the grievance of the applicant that as per an independent valuation report dated 06.03.2026 obtained from a qualified valuer and placed on record by him, the valuation of the said property is only about ₹77 lakhs.

13. This Court has considered the material placed on record as well as the rival submissions addressed by the parties.

14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that while granting regular bail to the applicant vide order dated 19.12.2024, the Predecessor Bench had directed that the amount of ₹2 crores deposited by the applicant be released to the complainant, subject to certain specific conditions. One of the conditions expressly imposed was that the complainant would provide details of a property owned by him in the affidavit and would further undertake that he shall not alienate, transfer, sell or create any encumbrance in relation to the said property without permission of the learned Trial Court.