Delhi High Court - Orders
Dhruv Jyoti Goel (In J/C) vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1942/2022
DHRUV JYOTI GOEL (IN J/C) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Asim Naeem & Ms. Riya Gulati,
Advocates
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for State with
Inspector Raguvir Singh & SI Anup Rana, P.S.
Najafgarh
Mr. Chirag Mudgal, Advocate for Complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR
KAURAV
ORDER
% 15.07.2022
1. Heard, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the complainant.
2. The applicant filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with FIR No. 883/2020 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Najafgarh, District Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 02.06.2022. He submits that the applicant was sent for police remand only for one day and, thereafter, he is in judicial custody. The entire FIR is complete abuse of the process of law. The original Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2022 17:22:49 complainant tries to take recourse of the criminal law to recover the alleged amount which was given by him as an advance. He has taken this Court through the FIR and he points out that the entire allegations against the applicant is that he has entered into an agreement with the complainant for the sale of the land without having absolute rights of ownership. He has pointed out that the date of the agreement is 14.12.2015 and prior to that there was already a decree in his favour by this Court on 23.07.2014. The complainant has deliberately not disclosed the fact of the final decree and only mentioned about the interim orders. He further submits that when the applicant was already before the Court of Law in a Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., he bonafidely did not appear during the aforesaid period before the Investigating Officer apprehending his arrest. The period consumed for taking recourse of the law under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. should not be construed as if the applicant was absconding and avoiding the investigation. In any case, he undertakes to fully cooperate in the investigation and he is ready to furnish the appropriate surety for the satisfaction of the trial court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation1, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all earlier judgments on the issue has held in Para 73 (c) that the Court will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 & Section 41A of Cr.P.C. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail. The trial court while rejecting applicant's bail application has clearly recorded that there is a non-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2022 17:22:49compliance of the Provision of Sections 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that not only on account of the non-compliance of the Provision of Sections 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C., but even on merits also the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the instant bail application. They submit that the present applicant has intentionally, knowingly and deliberately concealed the material facts while entering into the agreement. They further submit that the applicant was well aware of the fact that he is not legally entitled to execute the sale agreement. According to learned APP for the State, the applicant had only 1/11 th share over the disputed property and from Khasra Khatoni, it can be seen that the name of the father of the applicant was recorded in the concerned land record. He, therefore, submits that when there is reason to believe for the Investigating Officer that the applicant was avoiding his arrest and was not cooperating with the investigation, the Investigating Officer has not committed any violation of the Provisions of Sections 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C. He also points out that the investigation is not over and the Police is likely to complete the same within a short period of time. He, therefore, submits that unless the charge sheet is filed, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail.
6. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
7. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the entire facts available on record and finds that the learned trial court while rejecting the 1 (2022) SCC Online SC 825 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2022 17:22:49 application of the applicant has clearly recorded in paragraph No. 8 that there was non-compliance of the provision of Section 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has deprecated the conduct of the Investigating Officer in the matter of non-compliance and non-issuance of notice is required under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation2 has clearly held that the Investigating Agencies and their Officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 & 41A of Cr.P.C. The earlier pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar3 has been emphasised to be fully complied with. It has also been held that any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
8. It is seen that there was already a decree in favour of the applicant. The applicant has already been in judicial custody since 02.06.2022. There does not seem to be any further recovery to be made from him. The nature of the allegations are essentially related to execution of the sale agreement. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. There is a non- compliance of the Provisions of Section 41 and 41A of C.r.P.C. Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/Duty M.M./concerned Court and subject to the following further conditions:-
2Supra note 1 3 (2014) 8 SCC 469 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2022 17:22:49
(i) The applicant shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court.
(ii) In case of change of residential address or contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the same to the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly appear before the concerned Court during the pendency of the trial.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
(v) The applicant shall abide by any other condition which may be imposed by the concerned court.
9. The bail application stands allowed in the above terms.
10. A copy of this order be also communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
11. Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the trial of the case.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master to learned counsel for the parties.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 15, 2022 p'ma Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:16.07.2022 17:22:49