Parvinder Chawla @ Karan v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail to the petitioner, in a case arising out of FIR No.379/2013 registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120- B/34 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) at Police Station TilakNagar, NewDelhi. Thepetitioner is injudicial custody since 13.10.2015.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are within the narrow compass. The present FIR was registered in the complaint of Mr-Kamal Yadav-son of Late Shri Lakan Yadav, against Mr.Tajender Yadav, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Parvinder BailApplication No.1081 /20I[6] Page I of[6] 2016:DHC:8259 Chawla@Karan (the present petitioner), for committing cheating of Rs.63,20,000/- by inducing him for purchasing a plot being Plot No.121, area 120 Sq.Yards, Khasra No.19/15, Village Nilothi Colony which is also known as Vijay Laxmi Park, Delhi. The complainant had taken possession of the plot from the alleged person Gurdeep Singh and that after a passage oftime, he came to know that one MrJagjit Singh Khokha was the actual owner of the plot in question. A complaint ofthe alleged criminal conspiracy in this regard was lodged at Police Station Tilak Nagar against Mr.Tejender Yadav along with accused Parvinder Chawla, Sukhdev Singh and Gurdeep Singh on the basis of which the FIR in question was lodged.

3. It appears that the accused Parvinder Chawla introduced himself as Karan to the complainant and did not reveal his actual name and identity. In the first bail application, the present petitioner mentioned his name as 'Karan Singh' but there was no documentto support this fact and that he had a driving licence and photo identity card in the name of 'Parvinder Chawla'. The address of the petitioner mentioned in the document was also different from the one actual. It also transpires that the petitioner also did not disclose his identity to the complainant and made him believe that thesaid property belonged toMr.Tajender Yadav. BailApplication No.1081 /2016 page 2of[6]

4. The present petitioner was the person with whom the complainant interacted and that he was the conspirator in the offence of cheating. The petitioner first won the confidence of the complainant and made him believe that the property belonged to Tejender Yadav. The petitioner was, therefore, not only the witness to the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 4^ July, 2012 which was executed between Mr.Gurdeep Singh and Mr.Kamal Yadav, buthe was also a witness to the GPA dated 10^ April, 2012 executed between co-accused Sukhdev Singh and Gurdeep Singh, for the sale ofthe subject property. The petitioner is thus stated to have played an important role in the criminal conspiracy hatched jointly by the accused Tajender Yadav, Gurdeep Singh & Sukhdev Singh, which resulted in a monetary loss of Rs.63.[2] lakhs to the complainant. It transpiresthat the coaccused Sukhdev Singh had given his confessional statement which completely supports the case of the prosecution. It also transpires that the co-accused Sukhdev Singh, later on changed his stand under the influence ofthe co-accused Tajender Yadav. Thus, the petitioner received a sum ofRs.1,20,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/ffom the said illegal transaction which relates to the sale of the subjectproperty.

5. Charge sheet against the present petitioner and co-accused BailApp!icalionNo.I08l/20J[6] Page 8of[6] Sukhdev Singh has been filed before the Court on 12 December,

2015. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet against the coaccused Gurdeep Singh and Tajender Yadav had also been filed on 3"^ March, 2016. It further transpires that the petitioner is also involved in the cases of similar modus operandi in which FIR No.96/2013 was registered under Sections 420/448/468/471/34 IPG at P.S. Nihal Vihar, Delhi.

6. The petitioner filed bail application which was dismissed by the learned ASJ, West, Delhi on 20^'' November, 2015. The petitioner moved other bail applications which were dismissed by learned ASJ, West, Delhi on 4^^ January, 2016; 12^ February, 2016 &29"" March, 2016 respectively. On 4^ April, 2016, the petitioner moved bail application before this Court and liberty was given to the petitioner to move before the Sessions Court on the ground of parity. However, the application moved by the petitioner before the Court below for grant of bail on the ground of parity, was dismissed by learned ASJ.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the allegations againstthe petitionerare serious in nature and that there is involvement of the petitioner in hatching the alleged criminal conspiracy which resulted in huge financial loss to the BailApplication No. 1081 /2016 Page 4of[6] X complainant.

8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the submissions oflearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone through the material placed on record.

9. To decide the present bail application, what the Court is required to see is, as to whether aprima facie case is made out for grant of bailto thepetitioner or not.

10. It appears that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner and that the investigation in the present case, could not bring forth any incriminating material against the present petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the main accused Tajender Yadav, was admitted to anticipatory bail by the Court of learned ASJ, West, Delhi on 30^ November, 2015.

11. There are a large number of cases ofthis Court in which the question of parity in the matters of bail has been considered earlier and the weight ofjudicial authority is in favour of the principle of parity being followed.

12. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Parvinder Chawla@Karan in the present case subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of the BailApplication No. 1081 /20I[6] Page 5 of[6] like amount, to thesatisfaction oftheTrial Court.

13. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior permission ofthe Court concerned.

14. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing ofthe prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized ofthe trial.