Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 589/2016
SHIV KAPOOR Petitioner
Through Mr.S.C. Verma, Adv.
BAIL APPLN. 589/2016
SHIV KAPOOR Petitioner
Through Mr.S.C. Verma, Adv.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NOT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP with Insp.C.P.
Bhardwaj & ASI Shyam Sunder, PS Mukherjee Nagar.
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP with Insp.C.P.
Bhardwaj & ASI Shyam Sunder, PS Mukherjee Nagar.
AND
BAIL APPLN. 590/2016
DIMPY KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through Mr.S.C. Verma, Adv.
DIMPY KAPOOR .....Petitioner
Through Mr.S.C. Verma, Adv.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP with Insp.C.P.
Bhardwaj & ASI Shyam Sunder, PS
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP with Insp.C.P.
Bhardwaj & ASI Shyam Sunder, PS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEH
06.04.2016 The present applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR
2016:DHC:8237 No.218/2016, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, Police Station
Arguments heard.
As per FIR, the allegations levelled in the present case are that the complainant Renu Tyagi made a complaint to the police to the effect that accused Dimpy Kapoor along with her husband accused
Shiv Kapoor and daughter accused Vani Kapoor committed cheating upon her by sellingmortgaged property i.e. Plot No.129, FlatNo.105, Kingsway Camp, Nirankari Colony, Delhi vide two registered sale deeds dated 21.05.2008 and 27.03.2009. It is alleged that the complainant was physically disabled due to which her husband was looking for ground floor accommodation. Accused Shiv Kapoor met the husband of the complainant for selling his flat i.e. Plot No.129, Flat No.105, Kingsway Camp, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. Initially the complainant did not want to purchase the flat, but after some time all the three accused came and requested the complainant to buy the flat as they were in need of money. The complainant purchased the ground floor of the flat vide sale deed dated 21.05.2008. The accused persons told the complainant that original documents of the_ flat were destroyed in a fire. The flat was registered in the name of accused Dimpy Kapoor. On 27.03.2009, the complainant purchased the remaining half portion of the said flat vide registered sale deed.
On 01.01.2015, the complainant came to know that the said property was already lying mortgaged with Bank of Baroda since 05.07.2000
' and accused Dimpy Kapoor mortgaged the same after depositing the original sale deed. The accused persons were liable to pay Rs.81 lacs to the bank and it came to be known that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had already passed an order to auction the said flat for recovery of loan.
After conducting inquiries, the FIR of the present case was registered. Accused Vani Kapoor has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.02.2016.
Arguments heard.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had taken the credit facility of Rs.50 lacs from the bank for which the documents of the property in question was given to the bank for its inspection. The petitioners never mortgaged the property in the name of the bank. Since the petitioners were in financial crunch, they met the husband of the complainant who assured them of providing soft loan, provided that the accused persons sell offtheirproperty to the complainant. It is further argued that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature which has been given the colour of a criminal case. The complainant got lodged the present FIR to save herselffrom financial liabilities towards the bank as she became the owner of the property. It is further argued that the complainant had deposited Rs.20 lacs with DRAT to save her property from auction in the year 2013.
On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the bail applications. Status report has also been filed by the State. It has been submitted that the case is at the preliminary stage of investigation. It is further submitted that original documents are still to be recovered from the accused persons as well as bank.
The allegations levelled against the petitioners are that they committedthe act of cheating the complainant while selling their flat under the inducement that the same was free from all encumbrances.
However, later on it was revealed that the said flat was already lying mortgaged with the bank and award for its auction was already passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The stand of the prosecution is that the case is at the initial stage of investigation and ifthe petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it may hamper the investigation. Apart from this, several documents are still to be recovered from the petitioners.
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Both the bail applications are accordingly dismissed.
P.S.tEJilJ APRIL 06, 2016 dd
06.04.2016 The present applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR
2016:DHC:8237 No.218/2016, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, Police Station
Arguments heard.
As per FIR, the allegations levelled in the present case are that the complainant Renu Tyagi made a complaint to the police to the effect that accused Dimpy Kapoor along with her husband accused
Shiv Kapoor and daughter accused Vani Kapoor committed cheating upon her by sellingmortgaged property i.e. Plot No.129, FlatNo.105, Kingsway Camp, Nirankari Colony, Delhi vide two registered sale deeds dated 21.05.2008 and 27.03.2009. It is alleged that the complainant was physically disabled due to which her husband was looking for ground floor accommodation. Accused Shiv Kapoor met the husband of the complainant for selling his flat i.e. Plot No.129, Flat No.105, Kingsway Camp, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. Initially the complainant did not want to purchase the flat, but after some time all the three accused came and requested the complainant to buy the flat as they were in need of money. The complainant purchased the ground floor of the flat vide sale deed dated 21.05.2008. The accused persons told the complainant that original documents of the_ flat were destroyed in a fire. The flat was registered in the name of accused Dimpy Kapoor. On 27.03.2009, the complainant purchased the remaining half portion of the said flat vide registered sale deed.
On 01.01.2015, the complainant came to know that the said property was already lying mortgaged with Bank of Baroda since 05.07.2000
' and accused Dimpy Kapoor mortgaged the same after depositing the original sale deed. The accused persons were liable to pay Rs.81 lacs to the bank and it came to be known that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had already passed an order to auction the said flat for recovery of loan.
After conducting inquiries, the FIR of the present case was registered. Accused Vani Kapoor has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 20.02.2016.
Arguments heard.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had taken the credit facility of Rs.50 lacs from the bank for which the documents of the property in question was given to the bank for its inspection. The petitioners never mortgaged the property in the name of the bank. Since the petitioners were in financial crunch, they met the husband of the complainant who assured them of providing soft loan, provided that the accused persons sell offtheirproperty to the complainant. It is further argued that the dispute in question is purely civil in nature which has been given the colour of a criminal case. The complainant got lodged the present FIR to save herselffrom financial liabilities towards the bank as she became the owner of the property. It is further argued that the complainant had deposited Rs.20 lacs with DRAT to save her property from auction in the year 2013.
On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the bail applications. Status report has also been filed by the State. It has been submitted that the case is at the preliminary stage of investigation. It is further submitted that original documents are still to be recovered from the accused persons as well as bank.
The allegations levelled against the petitioners are that they committedthe act of cheating the complainant while selling their flat under the inducement that the same was free from all encumbrances.
However, later on it was revealed that the said flat was already lying mortgaged with the bank and award for its auction was already passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The stand of the prosecution is that the case is at the initial stage of investigation and ifthe petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it may hamper the investigation. Apart from this, several documents are still to be recovered from the petitioners.
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Both the bail applications are accordingly dismissed.
P.S.tEJilJ APRIL 06, 2016 dd
JUDGMENT