The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a witness and party to the property transaction, balancing the need for investigation completion against the evidence of seizure of documents and prior bail of the accused wife.
Bail directed to be granted on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
| BHUPINDER JEET SINGH | ..... Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Represented by: | Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Mr. Rajat Soni and Mr. Guhpati, G. Kashyap, Advocates. |
| versus | |
| STATE | ..... Respondent |
| Represented by: | Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP with SI Ajay Kumar, PS Kirit Nagar. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 03.08.2018
In the complaint Shashi Bhushan Malik alleged that Harpreet Kaur, wife of the petitioner, the present petitioner and their son, approached the complainant through a property dealer and expressed their intention of selling the property bearing No. B-21 (2nd Floor with roof rights), Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, measuring about 333.33 sq. yds. It was represented that Harpreet Kaur was the sole and absolute owner of the property and the property was free from all sorts of encumbrances. The sale consideration was settled at ₹2.71 crores out of which the complainant paid ₹50 lakhs to BAIL APPLN. 1288/2018 page 1 of 3
Harpreet Kaur as earnest money and the time for performance of the contract was fixed for four months from the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell. Further sum of 50 lakhs was also paid to Harpreet Kaur and her husband, the present petitioner, through cheque and cash. Later it was revealed that when the Agreement to Sell was entered into, which was duly witnessed by the petitioner being the husband of Harpreet Kaur, the property had already been under mortgage with M/s India Bulls Finance Limited, Gurgaon. It is thus alleged that the accused cheated the complainant for a sum of 1.06 crores.
intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 03, 2018
‘yo’
page 3 of 3
BAIL APPLN. 1288/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a cheating case involving the sale of mortgaged property.
Bhupinder Jeet Singh
State
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
