Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunil Kumar Dahiya vs State on 12 October, 2020
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 206/2020 & Crl.M.A.8836/2020
SUNIL KUMAR DAHIYA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Ananya Ghosh, Adv. with
Mr.Brian Henry Moses, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for State.
SI Chanchal PS EOW.
Mr.Shailendra Singh, Adv. with
Ms.Muskan Garg, Adv. for
Vigneshwara Victims Welfare
Association.
Mr.Vivek Sood, Sr. Adv. for
Investors.
Ms.Payal Chawla, Adv. with
Mr.Abhik, Adv. for Intervenors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
% 12.10.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. It is recorded in order dated 06.08.2020 that pursuant to order dated 22.07.2020, IO of the case was directed to file details of the documents which are on record of Trial Court. Accordingly, he stated that only list of 93 properties are on record of the Trial Court, however, there is no original document on record. It was further submitted that out of 93 properties, 87 properties were sold and 6 properties which are in the name of petitioner BAIL APPLN. 206/2020 Page 1 of 4 herein, their original documents are also not on record.
2. Mr.Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 6 properties admeasuring 17 ½ acres are situated in village Seedarwal, Gurgaon and if this Court grants bail to the petitioner for six months, these properties can be sold and the sale proceeds would be deposited in ESCROW account.
3. On the said date, Mr.Rakesh Khanna and Mr.Vivek Sood, learned senior counsels appeared on behalf of Investors submitted that the Trial Court has put an embargo on the sale of the properties including these 6 properties. Moreover, the embargo was put for the reason that until and unless the constructed area is not handed over to the investors, third party interest cannot be created in these properties.
4. Thereafter, this matter was taken up by this Court on 02.09.2020 and recorded the submission of counsel for the petitioner that all the properties had been sold before his arrest except 7 properties, which are his personal properties. This fact was disputed by counsels appearing on behalf of the Investors who submitted that 36 properties mentioned in the chart are still unsold.
5. Accordingly, IO of the case was directed to verify from the Sub- Registrars concerned whether the said properties are unsold or have been sold. In case they are sold, then the date of execution of the sale deed and parties to whom it has been sold to be disclosed in the report. IO was also directed to verify 17 properties as mentioned in response filed on behalf of Investors Sangarsh Samiti and certain other properties as mentioned in Volume 3 of the pleadings. IO was also directed to file a report regarding how many properties have been sold subsequent to the order passed by the BAIL APPLN. 206/2020 Page 2 of 4 courts within four weeks.
6. For the aforesaid purpose, Incharge EOW was directed not to assign any case to the IO concerned during that period because properties mentioned in the charts were situated in different states and would take substantial time to verify the same.
7. Pursuant to order dated 02.09.2020, IO has verified the status of properties from different Sub Registrar concerned and filed a chart of the properties whereby it is stated that as per the chart, 57 properties have already been sold before his arrest and as per page 8 of status report dated 09.10.2020, properties mentioned under serial no.(s) 1 to 50 are in the name of the petitioner or his companies which are still unsold.
8. Accordingly, I hereby direct that the said properties shall not be sold without permission of Mr.Justice Vinod Goel (Retd.), Supervisor appointed by this Court in Co.A. No.509/2018 in CO.PET.885/2015 vide judgment dated 27.01.2020.
9. I further make it clear that if any of the properties is sold out of the aforesaid 50 properties, the amount shall be deposited in ESCROW account.
10. As per para 6 of the status report dated 09.10.2020, status of 36 properties is yet to be verified and no response has been received from the concerned Sub-Registrar office.
11. Accordingly, the Sub-Registrars, mentioned against the 36 properties, though not party in the present petition, however, while exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., are directed to mention whether the properties mentioned in para 6 of the status report are sold or unsold and, send report within a week to the concerned IO, failing which all the default Sub- Registrars concerned shall personally remain present in Court through Video BAIL APPLN. 206/2020 Page 3 of 4 Conferencing and file an affidavit to explain the delay on the next date of hearing.
12. Learned senior counsel has pointed out that properties at serial number 40 to 44 at page 6 of the report were sold after his arrest. Thus, revoked embargo.
13. To this effect, let an affidavit be filed by client of Mr.Sood, learned senior advocate, pointing out the date on which embargo was imposed and when the said properties were sold. However, counsel for the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid fact and would like to file response to the affidavit to be filed by the client of Mr.Vivek Sood.
14. Let needful be done within one week thereafter.
15. IO is directed to file status report after receipt of information from the Sub-Registrar concerned for the left over properties.
16. For the aforesaid purpose, renotify on 25.11.2020.
17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J OCTOBER 12, 2020/ab BAIL APPLN. 206/2020 Page 4 of 4