Asha Madan v. State (GNCT of Delhi)

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 255/2019 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station PaschimVihar West, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant came in contact with Rakesh Madan@ Rakesh Arora (husband of petitioner herein) who is engaged in the property dealing business. It is further alleged that in January 2018 one Rajan Sharma and his brother Anmol Sharma approached the complainant and expressed their desire to purchase a flat in Punjabi Bagh Apartments, so the complainant introduced them with the husband of the petitioner and showed them flat no. 127, Punjabi Bagh Apartments and told that the owner of the said flat is Mr. Moti Lal Dass who has authorized the husband of the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Madan@ Rakesh Arora to sell the same. Further, after seeing the flat, Rajan Sharma and Anmol Sharma agreed to purchase the same and the deal was finalized for a sum of Rs.1.10 crores out of which Rs.10,00,000/- were paid to the husband of the petitioner as earnest money (bayana). Later on, Rajan Sharma and Anmol Sharma expressed their desire to purchase one more flat then the husband of the petitioner showed them flat No. 162 in Punjabi Bagh Apartments. Subsequently, Rajan and Anmol Sharma told the husband of the petitioner that they are not willing to purchase the flat No. 127 Punjabi Bagh Apartments (for which the deal was finalized for Rs.1.10 crores) and asked the husband of the petitioner to refund the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/but the husband of the petitioner refused for the same.

3. It is further alleged that as the complainant had introduced Rajan and Anmol Sharma with the husband of the petitioner so they asked the complainant to further ask the husband of the petitioner to refund the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also alleged that as the complainant was under tremendous pressure to refund Rs.10,00,000/- to Rajan and Anmol Sharma, he discussed the matter with his brother and his brother agreed to purchase the flat No. 127 Punjabi Bagh Apartments. Further alleged that on 19.6.2018 an Agreement to Sale/Purchase was executed between Neha (sister-in-law of complainant) and the husband of the petitioner. The documents of the flat which were in the name of Moti Lal Dass and the Power of Attorney executed by said Moti Lal Dass in favour of the husband of the petitioner were shown to the purchaser. It is further alleged that between 19.6.2018-26.9.2018, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the husband of the petitioner and it was agreed that the sale deed will be executed by Moti Lal Dass in favour Neha in November 2018. Prior to the date of execution of the sale deed, the complainant went to the office of the husband of the petitioner and then to his house to finalize the modalities but the same was found locked and even mobile phones were also switched off. Upon enquiry, he came to know that petitioner and her husband have fled away with money. Thereafter, on 08.06.2019, FIR No. 255/2019 under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, Delhi and the investigation was taken up.

4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State assisted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, perused the Status Report filed by the State and also perused the records of this case.

5. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that despite being aware about the residence of the applicant i.e., Flat No. 19, G.F, SFS Flat, Nagin Lake Apartment, Peeragarhi, New Delhi which has been seized by HDFC Bank in furtherance of debt recovery proceeding, a false premise was created firstly to issue NBW's and thereafter to initiate process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the applicant was always available to the investigating officer who was even aware of her contact details, however no efforts were made to contact her. It is further submitted that due to this the Applicant could not participate in the investigation and therefore she was erroneously declared a proclaimed offender owing to the manipulative tactics of the Investigating officer, as a result, Section 174A IPC was also invoked. It is further submitted that the matter is at the stage of framing of Charges and the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the present case is entirely documentary in nature and with the investigation being over, there is no apprehension of her tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It is further submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen and a woman who also has severe health issues, hence, it is prayed that bail be granted to the applicant.

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on ‘Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another’, (2014) 8 sec 273 and ‘Amandeep Singh Johar vs NCT of Delhi’, WP (C) 7608/2017.

6. On the other hand, Ld. APP while opposing the present bail application submitted that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein was declared proclaimed offender on 28.07.2020. It is further submitted that the applicant was arrested only after she was declared a proclaimed offender and she kept avoiding the process of investigation. It is further submitted that the petitioner may abscond or misuse the liberty of bail. Lastly, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed as there is strong apprehension that the evidences will be tempered.

7. Keeping in view the entire circumstances that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.03.2021 and is suffering from various ailments as mentioned in the medical report received from jail authorities and the fact that the trial is likely to take time, further the chargesheet has been file under Section 420 IPC for which the maximum punishment is 7 years’ Imprisonment along with fine and all the evidence filed along with the chargesheet is documentary in nature, therefore, the present bail application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

8. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of this case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 28, 2023