Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1489/2019
SANTLAL GUPTA@SANTLAL GOYAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Apurb Lai,Advocate with Ms.Meenu Pandey,Adv.
BAIL APPLN.1489/2019
SANTLAL GUPTA@SANTLAL GOYAL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Apurb Lai,Advocate with Ms.Meenu Pandey,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,AFP for the State with SI Kiranpal,PS Jagatpuri.
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,AFP for the State with SI Kiranpal,PS Jagatpuri.
BAIL APPLN.1490/2019
INDIRA GOBL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Apurb Lai,Advocate with Ms.Meenu Pandey,Adv.
INDIRA GOBL Petitioner
Through: Mr.Apurb Lai,Advocate with Ms.Meenu Pandey,Adv.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP forthe State with SI Kiranpal,PS Jagatpuri.
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP forthe State with SI Kiranpal,PS Jagatpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
05.07.2019 The petitioners are facing criminal proceedings on the accusations for offences punishable under sections 420/406/34 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860
(IPG) in the context of FIR No.536/2015 of Police Station Jagat Puri, registered on the complaint of Vijay Gupta, the gravamen relating to an agreement to sell that had been executed by the petitioner in the second captioned matter, the other petitioner (ofthe first captioned matter) being her husband and an attesting witness. The agreement to sell dated
2019:DHC:7316 close relative Krishna Goyal wife ofRam Niwas Gupta,he being the brother of the petitioner Sant Lai Gupta. As per the sale agreement the property
No.58, admeasuring 109.93 sq. mts., equivalent to 131.5 sq. yds., forming part ofthe plot ofland in the abadi area ofvillage khureji Khas, Shahdara
Delhi was offered to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.75 lacs. The aforesaid petitioner and the other person executing the said document, her husband Ram Niwas Gupta also being a signatory as an attesting witness, who had concededly received a total earnest amount of Rs.22.50 lacs, in instalments.
The complainant's case is that the property which was offered to be sold was subject matter ofa family dispute and further that he was cheated because the aforementioned property and the other executant of the agreement to sell were not owners ofthe entire property,their share being only to the extent of44 sq. yds.
The petitioners, and the said two others, had earlier approached this court for release on anticipatory bail by moving bail application
No.2265/2016 which was decided by a learned Single Judge ofthis court by order dated 17.01.2018. A perusal of the said order reveals that on
10.03.2017 the petitioners, and the two others, voluntarily offered to pay to the complainant amount ofRs.30 lacs which included the amount received on account of earnest money, for amicable full and final settlement. The undertakings to such effect were recorded by the court and interim protection granted. While the two others paid Rs.l5 lacs in compliance with the undertaking,the petitioners failed to do so. They were granted repeated
/ having been extended butno steps in thatregard having been taken. The learned Single Judge found this to be unacceptable. By order dated
17.01.2018theothertwo personsco-accused Krishna Goel andRam Niwas
Gupta were admitted to anticipatory bail while the anticipatory bail applicationsofthepetitionersweredismissed.Itisagainstthisbackdropthat the petitionersarestatedtohavebeenarrestedinthecourseofmvestigation and taken in custody on 25.02.2019.
The petitioners had approached the additional sessionsJudgeby bail application Nos.1336/2019 and 1352/2019. The said applications were, however,,dismissed bythe said.courtwhereafter they have approached this courtby way ofpresentapplications.
Statusreportshavebeensubmitted whicharetakenonrecord.
Thelearnedcounselforthe petitionersargued that bail is a matter of rightandthatitisnotfairtodeclinereleasetothepetitioners. Hereferredto
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI.2012(1)SCC40.to arguethatthe protection of personal liberty of the accused has to take precedence, denial of bail carrying asubstantialpunitive content. Thereisno doubtthatwhilethese principles have tn be borne in mind,the conduct of the person who is accusedofcrimehasalsotobekeptintoconsideration.^Thepetitionershad taken the court for a ride by securing interim protection by submitting undertaking on 10.03.2017 which wasneverintendedto be complied with.
Theirconductinthisregard hasbeenbroughtoutvividly intheorderdated
17.01.2018wherebytheirbailapplicationNo.2265/2016wasdismissedbya learned SingleJudgeofthiscourtearlier. with any clear reason or explanation as to why a false representation was made vis-a-vis the title of the petitioners in the subject property. On the contrary, he referred to a compromise decree passed by the civil court on
19.10.2013 which only reinforces the case against them to the effect that they were not owners ofthe entire property, their share being limited and restricted, this rendering the representation to the contrary to the complainantinthe agreementto sellprimafacie dishonest.
Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances ofthe case,and the pastconduct,this courtisnotinclinedtoreleasethe petitioners on bail.
Boththe petitions are dismissed.
'K
GA
JULY 05,2019 vk
05.07.2019 The petitioners are facing criminal proceedings on the accusations for offences punishable under sections 420/406/34 ofIndian Penal Code, 1860
(IPG) in the context of FIR No.536/2015 of Police Station Jagat Puri, registered on the complaint of Vijay Gupta, the gravamen relating to an agreement to sell that had been executed by the petitioner in the second captioned matter, the other petitioner (ofthe first captioned matter) being her husband and an attesting witness. The agreement to sell dated
2019:DHC:7316 close relative Krishna Goyal wife ofRam Niwas Gupta,he being the brother of the petitioner Sant Lai Gupta. As per the sale agreement the property
No.58, admeasuring 109.93 sq. mts., equivalent to 131.5 sq. yds., forming part ofthe plot ofland in the abadi area ofvillage khureji Khas, Shahdara
Delhi was offered to be sold for a total consideration of Rs.75 lacs. The aforesaid petitioner and the other person executing the said document, her husband Ram Niwas Gupta also being a signatory as an attesting witness, who had concededly received a total earnest amount of Rs.22.50 lacs, in instalments.
The complainant's case is that the property which was offered to be sold was subject matter ofa family dispute and further that he was cheated because the aforementioned property and the other executant of the agreement to sell were not owners ofthe entire property,their share being only to the extent of44 sq. yds.
The petitioners, and the said two others, had earlier approached this court for release on anticipatory bail by moving bail application
No.2265/2016 which was decided by a learned Single Judge ofthis court by order dated 17.01.2018. A perusal of the said order reveals that on
10.03.2017 the petitioners, and the two others, voluntarily offered to pay to the complainant amount ofRs.30 lacs which included the amount received on account of earnest money, for amicable full and final settlement. The undertakings to such effect were recorded by the court and interim protection granted. While the two others paid Rs.l5 lacs in compliance with the undertaking,the petitioners failed to do so. They were granted repeated
/ having been extended butno steps in thatregard having been taken. The learned Single Judge found this to be unacceptable. By order dated
17.01.2018theothertwo personsco-accused Krishna Goel andRam Niwas
Gupta were admitted to anticipatory bail while the anticipatory bail applicationsofthepetitionersweredismissed.Itisagainstthisbackdropthat the petitionersarestatedtohavebeenarrestedinthecourseofmvestigation and taken in custody on 25.02.2019.
The petitioners had approached the additional sessionsJudgeby bail application Nos.1336/2019 and 1352/2019. The said applications were, however,,dismissed bythe said.courtwhereafter they have approached this courtby way ofpresentapplications.
Statusreportshavebeensubmitted whicharetakenonrecord.
Thelearnedcounselforthe petitionersargued that bail is a matter of rightandthatitisnotfairtodeclinereleasetothepetitioners. Hereferredto
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI.2012(1)SCC40.to arguethatthe protection of personal liberty of the accused has to take precedence, denial of bail carrying asubstantialpunitive content. Thereisno doubtthatwhilethese principles have tn be borne in mind,the conduct of the person who is accusedofcrimehasalsotobekeptintoconsideration.^Thepetitionershad taken the court for a ride by securing interim protection by submitting undertaking on 10.03.2017 which wasneverintendedto be complied with.
Theirconductinthisregard hasbeenbroughtoutvividly intheorderdated
17.01.2018wherebytheirbailapplicationNo.2265/2016wasdismissedbya learned SingleJudgeofthiscourtearlier. with any clear reason or explanation as to why a false representation was made vis-a-vis the title of the petitioners in the subject property. On the contrary, he referred to a compromise decree passed by the civil court on
19.10.2013 which only reinforces the case against them to the effect that they were not owners ofthe entire property, their share being limited and restricted, this rendering the representation to the contrary to the complainantinthe agreementto sellprimafacie dishonest.
Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances ofthe case,and the pastconduct,this courtisnotinclinedtoreleasethe petitioners on bail.
Boththe petitions are dismissed.
'K
GA
JULY 05,2019 vk
BAIL APPLN. 1489/2019 etc.
JUDGMENT