Full Text
■ $~42-&73 .' . . ■ ■
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
/ BAIL APPLN^490/2018 / .: , SMT.'BHAWANA GOEL. ; 7 . ....••Petitioner , ■ . Through:Mr.Gurniehar S.Sistani with Mrj.Sarnit
■ ; ■ ; , Khosla/Adys. ^ ■
- /versus, ' '' . ,-' - STATE'QF NCtOFDELHI L _ Respond^t
Through:Mr.-G.M.-Faroocihi,APPfor State with
A •' V ...SI Sudhir,.P!S.KeshavPuram ■■ -
• . ■ ' Mr.Mukesh Kalfe Adv.forthe coniplamant. >
■ 'BAILAPPLN.-'i491/2aiR ' ^ , I , SH:ANILGOYAL - , ~ Z . . ^ Petitioner
Thfough:Mr.GuriTiehar S.Sistani withMr.Sainit
. - ' 'Khosla,Advs.
" - . "
- STATE OF NCt;OF DELHI , ; ..... Respondent
Through:Mr.G.M.Farooqui,APP for State with. , ., , - SI S,udhir,P.S.KeshavPuram. , _ . A
- , - ,' - Mr.MukeHi.Kalia,Adv.forthe complaina^^^^ • .
. ' CORAM: ■ ■
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI _ OR D E R . 17.07,:
■ /The petitioners seekTail.in FIR No. 442/2017, P:.S. Keshav
Purara regHtered..against them under .section 420 IPG oa the. complaint of.one Lalit-Goel son.'ofLate.Shri Hari Ram,that,the
■petitionershavedefraudedthemforanamountofRs.36lacs.
2018:DHC:8226 Deeds in respect oftwo properties. The original title docurnents of the said properties are stated to be in possession ofthe complainant.
It is the petitioners' contention,thatthe entire,monies have been, repaid on 28.12.2013. To substantiate the same,the petitioners rely, upon 19 transactions donein Syndicate Bank from the bank account of Ms.:Kanti Devi,the ihother.ofone ofthe petitioners namely Mr. Anil Goy.al showing a withdrawal ofRs.l9°,55,000/- from 24.09.2015 to 15T0.2015. , ' ■ :" A . / , •
. On thelast date ofhearing,this Courthad noted as under;
. ''The;learned counselfor the petitioner seeks time to obtain instructions, to ascertain whether the Income-Tax
Retuims (ITRs) ofthe petitioner^^refected the re-payment of
RsJOlacsdn cash toihe complainant'sfather. - Mr. Mukesh Kalia, t'he learned counsel, for the complainant states ■ that this Court has been misled by the. petitioner insofar as. the correct particulars have not been stated in the-petition. He submits that, according to the petitioner, the loan amountfor which thepetitioner'sproperty was mortgaged was allegedly repaid on 28.12.2013,.however, in the order ofthe Trial Courtdated22.05.2018declining bail, the petitioner lias relied upon a bank transaction of
.October,
JUDGMENT
2015. He submits thai it cannot be the petitioner's case that - the monies were returned twicoover i.e. in December,201.[3] as welTas in October, 2015.' •. ~, ■ The.learned:coitnselfor the petitioner seeks time to. obtain instructions in.this regard as well.. Athis request, re-notify on 17.07.2018." ~ If the petitioners rely upon payments'made in cash from the monies withdrawn from'the bank account of Ms.'Kanti Devi in the reason why a borrower would repay the loan for- Redemption of his^ mortgaged property/twice-over..Even today there is no. answer forthcoming as to.why the money would-be paid-twice over. -The claim,ofrepayment appears to be suspect.; V. The learned"counsel for the petitioners submits that, it is the, petitioners'stands that monies have beeii repaid in the year 2013 and the reference to transactions made in the,bank account of'Ms. Kartti Devi was made-duringoral arguments before the Trial Court.....Be that as it may-,the fact remains that ifthe money had been • repaid inthe year2013,why^would thfreference to banktransactions in 2015 be made at all. -,,.,In view ofthe above,the bail applications are dismissed Nothing stated in this,order shall be deemed to be an expression ' on the merits ofthe case. naj: JULY 17,2018/acm AZIRI,J A-