Delhi High Court - Orders
Javed Hussain vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 15 December, 2022
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3160/2022 & CRL. M. Bail No. 1296/2022
JAVED HUSSAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, Mr. Vikas
Padora, Mr. Dipanshu Chugh, Mr.
Pawan Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narinder Jit Singh Bajwa APP for
State with Mr. Shivesh Kaushik,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 15.12.2022
1. This petition has been filed seeking regular bail for the petitioner in FIR No.371/2017 under Sections 406/420/34 IPC and charge-sheet under Sections 420/467/468/471/406/120B/34 IPC registered at PS Model Town. The principal grounds on which this bail is sought is that the petitioner has already undergone three years and four months in judicial custody and the co-accused Abbas Hussain, who is facing trial alongwith the petitioner for the same charges and the same allegations has been granted regular bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20th October, 2017. Further, the charge-sheets were filed on 10th January, 2018 and two supplementary charge-sheets were filed on 11th April, 2018 and 11th February, 2019. Out of 36 witnesses, the prosecution has examined only 4 till date and there is no possibility of the trial coming to an end in the near future. The main complainant in the case has already been examined and, therefore, the question of tampering with evidence does not arise. Moreover, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43 evidence is documentary nature and in the custody of the Ld. Trial Court. The petitioner is a sole bread earner for his family which comprises of his wife and three minor daughters and one minor son and an old aged mother about 78 years. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi as also has been on interim bail for a period of 17 months from June, 2020 to November, 2021 and has never misused the liberty granted.
2. The background facts are that the case was registered on the complaint of Mr. Kamal Jit Singh Chaddha, Director of M/s Sachdeva Land and Finance with three other complainants who filed a joint complaint alleging that the accused petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 17th May, 2017 in respect of property bearing No.B-1, New Jafrabad, Shahdara, Delhi ad measuring basement 140 sq. meters with ground floor area of 70 sq. meters and other rights. The total consideration was for Rs.1.35 crores and on 17th May, 2017. A sum of Rs.1.3 crores was paid and possession letter for handing over possession executed in favour of the complainant. When the complainant published a public notice to validate the ownership of the property, three of the other complainants contacted him and came to know that the petitioner alongwith his brother had cheated them as well on pretext of getting the sale deed of the same property registered in their favour. Further when investigation was taken up, it was revealed that the petitioner entered into a loan agreement dated 24th September, 2015 with M/s Sachdeva Land and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and had availed a loan of Rs.1.3 crores with the condition to pay 27% interest. It was also found that the said property was already found mortgaged with M/s Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. and original documents were with M/s DHFL. Upon transfer of Rs.1.3 crores, the complainant company got the original documents Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43 released from M/s DHFL and later paid the balance to the petitioner. Later when the loan amounts were not being paid up, the petitioner failed to turn up for the execution of the sale deed. Later, it was revealed that the ground floor and basement of the property had been transacted with one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Goel in whose favour documents of possession etc. had been made. Later, it was revealed that the petitioner had also mortgaged the property in Corporation Bank against the guarantee of a loan of Rs.2 crores and the original documents of the property were found in possession of Corporation Bank. When the Corporation Bank proposed to auction the property, it was found that the documents were forged and fabricated. Other facts had been alleged regarding the multiple sales of property by the petitioner and his brother. The complainants in the case as well as other victims never took physical possession of the property except one gentleman called Raisuddin, while payments had been already made to the petitioner.
3. Besides the aforesaid facts mentioned in the status report, it was stated that the charge-sheets had been filed on 10th January, 2018, 11th April, 2018 and 11th February, 2019. The counsel for the petitioner refuted the facts as stated in the statement of status report and reiterated the contentions as stated above. Further, he relied upon the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in Sunder Singh Bhati v. State (Bail Application 3750/2021 decision of 17th January, 2022); Navendu Babbar v. State of NCT of Delhi (Bail Application 913/2020 dated of decision 18th June, 2020); and Ashok Panwar v. State (Bail Application 1606/2020 date of decision 04th August, 2020), contending that these decisions, even in cases where forgery had been alleged, this Court did grant bail. In particular, this Court had held in Navendu Babbar v. State of NCT of Delhi that "in cases such as this, in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43 which allegations relate to forgery and fabrication of documents, transfer of moneys between bank accounts through banking channels, the prosecution would turn essentially upon documentary evidence, which is already been collected and charge-sheet has been filed...the applicants present in custody would not be necessary or justified". Reliance in the said decision had been made inter alia on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2019) SCC online SC 1380.
4. The plea for bail by the petitioner has been contested by the APP and the counsel for the complainant on the principal ground that the petitioner and his brother have conspired to cheat many persons including the complainants by raising money and circulating multiple sets of documents, including which are forged and fabricated to various parties. The counsel for the petitioner has refuted this by stating that as far as the original FIR was concerned it was only under Sections 406/420/34 IPC which would be at best awarded a sentence of seven years and he had already undergone half of that period of punishment and the trial was still pending. Further as regards to the question of forgery, he stated that the Corporation Bank was not a complainant and, therefore, that aspect should be not considered as relevant at this stage.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances stated above, it is noted that inter alia, the co-accused (brother of the petitioner) is on regular bail granted by this Court; as also the fact that the petitioner has been already in custody for about three years and four months and despite being on interim bail on six occasions has surrendered in time and not misused the same; a perusal of the Nominal Roll also shows that there is no other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43 involvement of the petitioner and his jail conduct has been satisfactory; the charge-sheets have been filed including two supplementary charge-sheets and the nature of the evidence is documentary in nature and is in custody of the investigating agency/Trial Court.
6. Note is also taken of a previous decision of this Court in Sunder Singh Bhati v. State (supra) where this Court has stated in a matter which involved a multi person scam involvement more than Rs.200 crores, that the gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the petitioner. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "...one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson".
7. In light of the above and that the trial in the matter is likely to take some time and it would not be prudent to keep the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court, further subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the court.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43
ii. Petitioner has given his address in the memo of parties and shall be living at that address. The petitioner shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO regarding any change in residential address. iii. Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
iv. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the IO concerned.
v. Petitioner shall provide all his mobile numbers to the IO concerned which shall be kept in working condition at all times and shall not switch off or change the mobile number without prior intimation to the IO concerned. The mobile location be kept on at all times. vi. Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses, the complainant or tamper with the evidence of the case.
8. Copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.
9. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J DECEMBER 15, 2022/mk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:21.12.2022 01:15:43