Didar Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR NO. 675/2022 of PS Subhash Place for offence under Section 406/420/120B IPC. 1.[1] As reflected from record, the accused/applicant Didar Singh as well as his father Darshan Singh are accused persons in the subject FIR and both of them filed anticipatory bail applications, which were being taken up together. But unfortunately, Sh. Darshan Singh passed away and now the anticipatory bail application of only Didar Singh is being taken up. 1.[2] As further reflected from record, the matter kept getting adjourned repeatedly before the predecessor benches on the ground of settlement between the accused/applicant and the complainant de facto. Before the predecessor benches, the matter was also sent to the Mediation Centre, Delhi High Court and across repeated adjournments, the settlement amount was being paid in instalments. 1.[3] All through, the accused/applicant remained under interim protection from arrest, granted by the predecessor benches on date to date basis. 1.[4] On 25.03.2025, when for the first time the matter came before me, it was pointed out to both sides that according to the settled legal position, the courts dealing with bail matters are not forum for recovery of money; however, since earlier the matter was being adjourned in the process of settlement, keeping in mind reasonable expectation of learned counsel, his adjournment request was allowed, making it clear that no further indulgence would be granted. On the next date, 09.05.2025, again adjournment was requested on behalf of accused/applicant, which was allowed subject to costs making it clear that no further indulgence would be extended. 1.[5] Hence, the matter taken up today. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Shivendra.

2. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The now deceased accused Sh. Darshan Singh was owner of property bearing house no. 34, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and he executed a General Power of Attorney in the name of his son, the present accused/applicant Didar Singh. The said property was re-entered by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), so nobody had a right to sell or otherwise transfer the same in any manner. Pertaining to the said property, one civil suit bearing no. CS(OS) 625/2010 also was pending before this court. In addition, eviction proceedings pertaining to the said property also were pending before the Estate Officer. Concealing all those challenges to the title, the accused/applicants sold away the said property to the complainant de facto by executing an Agreement to Sell for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,00,000/- on 11.01.2021. The complainant de facto paid earnest money of Rs.50,00,000/- through RTGS into the bank account of Sh. Darshan Singh, who in turn transferred Rs.35,00,000/- to the present accused/applicant Didar Singh on the same day. Subsequently when the complainant de facto visited the said property, it was revealed to him that it was a disputed property, involved in certain litigations. On being contacted, the accused/applicants assured the complainant de facto to get him a clear title, but the same was not done despite his repeated requests.

3. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant because it was a simple civil transaction of transfer of property and in terms with mediation settlement, the accused/applicant has paid back the entire money taken by him from the complainant de facto. It is further contended that the recorded owner of the subject property was Sh. Darshan Singh, though the present accused/applicant also inherited the same as it was ancestral property. Learned counsel for accused/applicant further contends that there are no objectionable antecedents of the accused/applicant. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also contends that the accused/applicant was not a GPA holder and that the Agreement to Sell was entered into between the complainant de facto and Sh. Darshan Singh. No other argument has been addressed.

4. On the other hand, learned APP at the outset has shown me the General Power of Attorney executed by Sh. Darshan Singh in favour of the present accused/applicant from the investigation file. It is contended by learned APP that learned counsel for accused/applicant has not been truthfully briefed by his client in this regard. Further, learned APP has also taken me through paragraph 10 of the status report dated 08.04.2024, which enlists as many as 09 transactions/encumbrances on the subject property and it is contended that the accused/applicant cheated number of other persons as well following the same modus operandi as used in the present case.

5. Earlier, in the case titled Umesh Verma vs State, 2025:DHC:5548, I had an occasion to deal with the issue similar to the present case thus:

refer to a few of them, viz. Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi); St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. Having regard to the principles of law laid down in the said decisions, inter alia, to the effect that the courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused, the High Court should have independently applied its mind and arrived at a conclusion as to whether a case for grant of bail, on settled parameters, had been made out or not irrespective of whatever statement was made on behalf of the appellant before the Sessions Judge.” 7.[2] While elaborately examining the legality of the conditions that can be imposed for granting bail, the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 766, held thus:

payment/deposit by the accused be considered before grant of an order for bail. In exceptional cases such as where an allegation of misappropriation of public money by the accused is levelled and the accused while seeking indulgence of the court to have his liberty secured/restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of the public money allegedly misappropriated by him, it would be open to the concerned court to consider whether in the larger public interest the money misappropriated should be allowed to be deposited before the application for anticipatory bail/bail is taken up for final consideration. After all, no court should be averse to putting public money back in the system if the situation is conducive therefor. We are minded to think that this approach would be in the larger interest of the community. However, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating.” (emphasis supplied) 7.[3] In the case of Bimla Tiwari vs State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 51, the Supreme Court held thus:

11. We would further emphasize that, ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.” 7.[4] Recently, even this bench in the case of Mohit Singh Raghav vs Government of NCT at New Delhi {Bail Application NO. 662/2024, decided on 05.05.2025}, reiterated that the bail court is not a forum for recovery of money. It is in view of above legal position that when this bail application came up before me for the first time on 17.04.2025 that both sides were directed to address on merits instead of getting the matter endlessly adjourned in the name of settling the monetary claims of the defrauded investors.”

6. Coming to the merits of this case, prima facie, it does not appear to be a case of simple civil transaction given colour of criminality. As mentioned above, the L&DO had already entered upon the subject property, divesting the accused Sh. Darshan Singh all right, title and interest in the same. But despite that, he entered into Agreement to Sell the subject property with the complainant de facto, not just concealing the re-entry but also assuring that the subject property was free from all encumbrances. Not just this, there are as many as 09 more transactions related to the subject property enlisted in paragraph 10 of the status report dated 08.04.2024 and all those transactions existed when the Agreement to Sell was executed but the same were concealed from the complainant de facto.

7. I am unable to convince myself that the alleged acts of criminality were done only by Sh. Darshan Singh. Admittedly, Sh. Darshan Singh was a cancer patient and was bedridden with one of his legs amputated, so he had executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the present accused/applicant to deal with the above mentioned dubious transactions pertaining to the subject property. Those transactions have been described in the GPA itself.

8. Merely because now the accused/applicant has paid back money to the complainant de facto, he cannot seek to be absolved in the present case. For, what has been paid by the accused/applicant is towards discharge of his civil liability only. The present case has to be tested solely on the anvil of merits of the allegations against the accused/applicant. As mentioned above, it is not just the complainant de facto but even the government authorities and other persons enlisted in paragraph 10 of the status report dated 08.04.2024, who have been prima facie cheated by him.

9. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant.