Saheeb Arora v. State NCT of Delhi

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,,: (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.34/17 under Section 420/34i:^flthe Indian.Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered,at Police Station, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Status Report is on record. Q

2. Brief facts of the case are that,.^a= complaint was lodged on 27.01.2017 by one Sarwan Singh/ complainantalleging therein that one Sant Arora/ co-accused, introduced his son Saheeb Arora/petitioner to the complainant for the purpose of construction of complainant's house; thatfor the said purpose an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the petitioner on 05.05.2015, in furtherance of which the complainant paid Rs.l[2] Lakhs in cash to the petitioner and the petitionerassured that BAIL APPLN. 177U2017 Page 1 of[5] 2017:DHC:8791, M

3. / the consti-uction work would be completed by 18.11.2015; that the petitioner did not begin any work for two months and thereafter issued four cheques and apromissory note to the complainant as a surety to be encashed in case the petitioner fails to can-y out the construction work; that as no construction work had begun until 18.11.2015 the complainant, being left with no other option, presented the cheques in the bank for encashment but the same' were dishonoured as the petitioner had deliberately stopped the payment of the cheques; that on this the petitioner also served a legal notice upon the complaiiimitiji order to make afalse ground; that hence the compl^^nt^ois^-aw^^ of ths fraudulent intention ofthe petitionerlMge||ftj^esent complaint.• The petitioner filed an anticifeatoty bail application before the Court of Additional Sessit,| (asj) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2017. Subsequently another application for anticipatory;bailfiled on behalf of the petitioner before the ASJ was disraissed^^agWithdrawn vide order dated ^ 30.08.2017. Hence the present petition.

4. Harish Kumar;:^l^e|||ungg|^ that all the allegations made in present FIR are false and baseless and have been made only to harass the petitioner; that the complainant, who claimed himself to be a bank agent, had approached the petitioner and offered him apersonal loan; that as the petitioner had shown willingness to take a loan for Rs.12 Lakhs, the complainant on 30.07.2015 took four blank signed cheques, blank promissory notes, two blank papers bearing bail APPLN. 1771/2017

5. revenue stamps and Rs.40.000/- cash as processing charges from thepetmoner, forgettingthe loan sanctioned; thathoweverneither was the loan sanctioned nor were the documents and processing carges returned by the complainant; that thepetitionergot alegal demand notice dated 18.10.2015 served upon the complainant through hts counsel to which the complainant gave an evasive 'eply; that the petitioner therefore filed a- complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the complarnant mNovember 2015 in which SI Abhijeet, who is also t present caserhadVffled aStatus Report; that the present FIR is nothing but aSp^blto to the said complaint made by the petitioner agairiW|iSmplainant; that ffie blank signeddocumernshave beenftbg^fascollaborationagreemem, promissory note and receipt the loan transaction of Rs. 12 Lakhs; that the petitione|||a|readyjoined investigation and further undertakestodosoas^l^enrequired; thathencein the aforementu,ned circumstan<ii|g'petitioner be released on anticipatory bail as prayed for. PerContra,Ms. AnitaAbrdip,,ie^^;|(>P fortheStateopposed the anticipatoty bail application ofthepetitionerand submittedthat there are serious allegations against the petitioner for having cheated the complainant ofRs.l[2] Lakhs on afalse assurance of constntctmg his house; that the petitioner had himselfissued four cheques to the complainant and thereafter deliberately stopped the payment of those cheques by stating in the bank that the said cheques had been lost, although he did not report the same to the BAIL APPLN. 1771/2017

6.

7.

8. i police; that the alleged amount is yet to be recovered and hence the petitioner is required for custodial interrogatioti; that keeping in view the above, the presentpetition be dismissed. 1have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In -the present case, the complainant alleges to have given an amount ofRs.12 Lakhs in cash to the petitioner in furtherance ofa collaboration agreement entered into between both the parties for the purpose of construction of the complainant's property. It has been further stated by thescpmii'iafiant that the petitioner issued a promissoiy note alongwith four cheques draW^.on Janta Co-operative Bank beapng No. 174693 (dated 14.i0.2015 of Rs.5,00,000/-), No.174695,(dated 15.10.2015 of Rs.1,00,000/-), No.174696 (dated 16.10.i6l[5] of 1#.1,00,000/-) and No.l74698 (dated 17.10.2015 of,Rs,5J^,006A).,to be encashed in case the petitioner fails to canj. oi^ap,cpris^^^ of the complainant's property. However wfen-the said'cheques were presented for encashmem by the complainant, the same were dishonoured. The Status Report a^r<|iM,alf|^ reveals that during investigation notice was served upon the Bank which confirmed that the saidchequesgivento the complainantweredrawn from the petitioner's accoum and the petitioner had himself deliberately stopped the payment ofthose cheques by stating in the bank that the said cheques had been lost. bail APPLN. 1771/2017 Page 4 of[5]

9.

10.

11.

12. "1 The amount of Rs.I[2] Lakhs, as alleged to be given by the complainant is yet to be recovered in respect of which the petitioner shall be required for custodial interrogation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend the discretionary reliefofanticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly the present petition stands dismissed. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition^all not have,any bearing on the merits ofthe case during triai^';,. i =,. v:r. Vs'::3.' •- r DECEMBErV^, 2017 //gr. |VGRA SEHGAL,J