Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2772 (DEL)

AMARDEEP SHARMA v. STATE

2016-07-28

P.S.TEJI

body2016
ORDER : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner is seeking bail in FIR No. 2028/2015 under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. 2. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of property No. B-8, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and against which a sum of Rs. 13 lacs was taken as an earnest money but subsequently the property was not transferred to the complainant. It has been further alleged that the complainant found that the property does not belong to the petitioner. Therefore the case of cheating was registered against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he took a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the complainant and not Rs. 13 lacs and subsequently, he offered the other property as the property was not with the petitioner. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the recovery of the money could not be a ground for rejection of the bail. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Narayanan vs. State, 2003 (66) DRJ 48 (DB). 4. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and contended that there are recordings of conversations between the complainant and the petitioner during the period of November 2014, wherein the complainant demanded his money back from the petitioner and the petitioner gave him assurance that he shall return the money. Not only this, but there is a proof of payment and bayana receipt on record and during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner was not the owner of the property in dispute against which he had received Rs. 13 lacs from the complainant by representing himself as the owner of the property. The whereabouts of the petitioner could be traced with great difficulty and after long efforts for months. Notice was also served upon the petitioner on 03.04.2016 to join the investigation but even then he did not join the investigation.