Full Text
Translation output
$-5,6&7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1634/2018
DARSHAN SINGH NAMDHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A K Padhy&
Mr.S RPadhy,Advs
BAIL APPLN.1634/2018
DARSHAN SINGH NAMDHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A K Padhy&
Mr.S RPadhy,Advs
VERSUS
STATE
(GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ashok K Gaur,APP
SI Manmeet Singh,PS Ranjit Nagar
(GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ashok K Gaur,APP
SI Manmeet Singh,PS Ranjit Nagar
BAIL APPLN.1635/2018
DARSHAN SINGH NAMDHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A K Padhy&
Mr.S R Padhy,Advs
DARSHAN SINGH NAMDHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A K Padhy&
Mr.S R Padhy,Advs
VERSUS
STATE
(GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP
Nagar
(GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,APP
Nagar
BAIL APPLN.1636/2018
DARSHAN SINGH NAMADHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A KPadhy &
Mr.S R Padhy,Advs
DARSHAN SINGH NAMADHARI& ANR Petitioners Represented by: Mr.A KPadhy &
Mr.S R Padhy,Advs
VERSUS
STATE(GNCT OF DELHI) Respondent Represented by: Mr.Ashok K Gaur,APP
Nagar BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-1/4 2018:DHC:8189 n
Nagar BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-1/4 2018:DHC:8189 n
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
10.09.2018 By these three petitions the petitioners Darshan Singh Namadhari and
Uday Singh seek bailin the following FIRs:- a) FIRNo.624/2015 under sections 420/460/471/34IPG; b) FIRNo.292/2017 under sections 420/34IPG;& c) FIR No.380/2016 under sections 380/457/448/34IPG all registered at police station RanjitNagar.
FIR No.624/2015 under sections 420/460/471/34 IPG was registered th on the directions ofthe Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16 July, 2015 on the complaint of M/s. Bharat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. alleging that
Darshan Singh Namdhari along with his two brothers namely Anoop Singh
(since deceased) and Uday Singh, (petitioner no.2) represented to them resulting in entering of a Memorandum of Understanding for selling property bearing No.34,South Patel Nagar,Delhi. Agreement to Sell was signed on 13'^ December, 2012 and the complainant paid a sum of t
82,50,000/- to the petitioners. However, dispute arose between the parties due to payment of?3,40,00,000/- paid to M/s Yahoo Exports Pvt.Ltd. with whom the petitioners had earlier entered into an agreement to sell. It was thus evident that having entered into agreement to sell with M/s Yahoo
ExportsPvt.Ltd.,the petitioners entered into further agreementto sell ofthe same property withthe complainantM/s.BharatBuildtech Pvt.Ltd.
BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-2/4 FIR No.292/2017 under sections 420/34 IPG was registered on the complaint of one Sanjeev Yadav alleging that the petitioners approached him through an acquaintance and claimed to be co-owners of the three storey build up property bearing no.34,South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and wanted to sell the same below the market value as they were in dire need of money. To show their bona fide,the petitioners agreed to hand over vacant physical possession of two rooms situated on the second floor of the property at the time ofagreement to sell. Thus,the agreement to sale and purchase was entered into on 12^^^ July,2016for atotal consideration of?15 crores out ofwhich ?2 crores were paid to the petitioners. However,it was revealed that the petitioners had already entered into an agreement to sell with different parties,namely M/s.Yahoo Exports Pvt.Ltd., Pardeep Singh and Joginder Sharma.
FIR No.380/2016 under sections 380/457/448/34 IPG was registered at instance ofcomplainant Anish Kumar Sharma alleging that the first floor and second floor of the property bearing no.34, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi was in possession ofhis maternal uncle. However,on 25"^ August, 2016 he leftfortwo days and the accused persons,i.e.,the petitioners herein forcibly occupied the said property by replacing the locks and stole the articles lying therein.
From the complaints as noted above, it is clear that the petitioners indulged in selling the same property to a number of parties, took money from the victims and also trespassed into portions ofthe property bearing no.34. South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders whereafterthey were arrested.
BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 Considering the nature of allegations and the conduct of the petitioners being not available at the time ofinvestigation, this Court finds no ground to grantthem bail.
Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
MUKTA OTPTA,J.
SEPTEMBER 10,2018 'sm' BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-4/4
10.09.2018 By these three petitions the petitioners Darshan Singh Namadhari and
Uday Singh seek bailin the following FIRs:- a) FIRNo.624/2015 under sections 420/460/471/34IPG; b) FIRNo.292/2017 under sections 420/34IPG;& c) FIR No.380/2016 under sections 380/457/448/34IPG all registered at police station RanjitNagar.
FIR No.624/2015 under sections 420/460/471/34 IPG was registered th on the directions ofthe Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 16 July, 2015 on the complaint of M/s. Bharat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. alleging that
Darshan Singh Namdhari along with his two brothers namely Anoop Singh
(since deceased) and Uday Singh, (petitioner no.2) represented to them resulting in entering of a Memorandum of Understanding for selling property bearing No.34,South Patel Nagar,Delhi. Agreement to Sell was signed on 13'^ December, 2012 and the complainant paid a sum of t
82,50,000/- to the petitioners. However, dispute arose between the parties due to payment of?3,40,00,000/- paid to M/s Yahoo Exports Pvt.Ltd. with whom the petitioners had earlier entered into an agreement to sell. It was thus evident that having entered into agreement to sell with M/s Yahoo
ExportsPvt.Ltd.,the petitioners entered into further agreementto sell ofthe same property withthe complainantM/s.BharatBuildtech Pvt.Ltd.
BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-2/4 FIR No.292/2017 under sections 420/34 IPG was registered on the complaint of one Sanjeev Yadav alleging that the petitioners approached him through an acquaintance and claimed to be co-owners of the three storey build up property bearing no.34,South Patel Nagar, New Delhi and wanted to sell the same below the market value as they were in dire need of money. To show their bona fide,the petitioners agreed to hand over vacant physical possession of two rooms situated on the second floor of the property at the time ofagreement to sell. Thus,the agreement to sale and purchase was entered into on 12^^^ July,2016for atotal consideration of?15 crores out ofwhich ?2 crores were paid to the petitioners. However,it was revealed that the petitioners had already entered into an agreement to sell with different parties,namely M/s.Yahoo Exports Pvt.Ltd., Pardeep Singh and Joginder Sharma.
FIR No.380/2016 under sections 380/457/448/34 IPG was registered at instance ofcomplainant Anish Kumar Sharma alleging that the first floor and second floor of the property bearing no.34, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi was in possession ofhis maternal uncle. However,on 25"^ August, 2016 he leftfortwo days and the accused persons,i.e.,the petitioners herein forcibly occupied the said property by replacing the locks and stole the articles lying therein.
From the complaints as noted above, it is clear that the petitioners indulged in selling the same property to a number of parties, took money from the victims and also trespassed into portions ofthe property bearing no.34. South Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders whereafterthey were arrested.
BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 Considering the nature of allegations and the conduct of the petitioners being not available at the time ofinvestigation, this Court finds no ground to grantthem bail.
Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
MUKTA OTPTA,J.
SEPTEMBER 10,2018 'sm' BAIL APPLNs.1634-36/2018 P-4/4
JUDGMENT