Babita v. State

Delhi High Court · 23 Jan 2017 · 2017:DHC:8449
Mukta Gupta
Bail Appln. 120/2017
2017:DHC:8449
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications of accused who breached a settlement agreement and defaulted on payments in a cheating case under Section 420 IPC.

Full Text
Translation output
r $-30,32to 34 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN.120/2017
BABITA Petitioner Represented by: Mr.SumitChoudhary with Mr. Jujhar Singh,Advs.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent Represented by: Ms.Rajni Gupta,APP with SI
Somveer Singh,Spl.Staff, Rohini.
Mr.S.Khan with Ms.Sushmita Dass,Advs.
BAILAPPLN.124/2017
SUKHBIR Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE Respondent Rohini.
Dass,Advs, BAILAPPLN. 129/2017 SUNIL KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE(GOVTOF NOTOF DELHI) Respondent Rohini.
2017:DHC:8449
BAIL APPLN. 132/2017
SACHTN VERMA Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Sumit Choudhary with Mr.
VERSUS
STATE(GOVTOF NCTOFDELHI) Respondent Represented by: Ms.Rajni Gupta,AFP with SI
Rohini.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
23.01.2017 Crl.M.A. 1193/2017in BaiLAppl.No.120/2017
Crl.M.A. 1203/2017 in Bail.Appl.No.124/2017 Crl.M.A. 1224/2017 in Bail.Appi.No.129/?.m 7
Crl.M.A. 1241/2017inBaiLAppl.No.132/2017 Exemption allowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.
Bail Appl.Nos. 120/2017. 124/2017. 129/2017& 132/7017
ORDER

1. By these petitions,the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.237/2016 under Section 420 IPG registered at PS Narela now being investigated by Spl.Branch,DelhiPolice.

2. The allegations in the FIR are that M/s Sunidhi Investment Ltd. had purchasedtheland measuring9Kanal4Mariaat Village Kundli,Tehsiland District Sonipat for a sum of ?92 lakhs on 12^'' July, 2016. When the complainant was doing fencing ofthe property and started measuring the same,he was stopped from doing so and it was ultimately found that the petitioners had sold the property which did not belong to them.

3. When the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and on an assurance that the petitioners would pay a total sum of?1.07 crores to the complainantin instalments and had paid first instalment of ?27 lakhs, anticipatory bails were granted to them. The cheques given in lieu ofinstalments were dishonoured. However,thereafter the petitioners defaulted in payment ofthe amounts and till date no further amounts have been paid, resulting in passing ofthe impugned order dated 13''' January, 2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the anticipatory bails granted to the petitioners.

4. Considering the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent conduct of the petitioners, this Court finds no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Petitions are dismissed.