Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nidhi Arora W/O Chandra Prakash Arora vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2020
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3952/2020
Nidhi Arora W/o Chandra Prakash Arora, Aged About 38 Years,
Permanent Address Plot Number 1174-A DLF Colony, Sector 23
Rohtak, Police Station - Arya Nagar, District Rohtak, Haryana,
Temporary Address On Rented House, Flat No. B-204, Milanioum
Residency, Sector 47, Gurugram, Police Station Sadar Gurugram,
District Gurugram, Haryana (At Present In Sub Jail, Behrore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Adv. (On Video
Conferencing).
Mr. Manoj Shoren, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, Public
Prosecutor.
Mr. Mahendra Shandilya, Adv. for the complainant. (on Video Conferencing).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 12/05/2020 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been booked by the Police in FIR No.568/2019 for the offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that in fact a Developer Agreement was entered for construction of EWS/LIG flats and distribution of flat was to take place between the property owner and the developer. Counsel submitted that the project was granted permission by the Competent Authority and it was also registered under Rajasthan Real Estate Regular Authority and bank account was also opened. (Downloaded on 12/05/2020 at 08:48:25 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-3952/2020] Learned counsel submitted that dispute with regard to the completion of project has resulted into a civil dispute and as such the Civil Court has passed an order dated 01.11.2018 and the complainant/land owner feeling aggrieved against such order had filed the appeal before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the land owner.
Learned counsel submitted that even the project was developed to the extent of 60% as per proposed plan, however, in spite of best efforts by the petitioner, FIR was registered and bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she has three children and aged in-laws to look-after. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is only Director in the Company and she has only 5 % share holding with the Company and as such Police after completing the investigation has filed challan and she is not required for any other purpose.
Per contra, Mr.Mahendra Shandilya learned counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that the petitioner and her husband have indulged in cheating not only with the land owner/complainant but also with the prospective flat buyers.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and her husband have also not complied with the developer agreement and in fact the entire money was siphoned off as the money was not transferred to the escrow account.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is major share holder in the Company and only because she happens to lady, no indulgence should be granted.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2020 at 08:48:25 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-3952/2020] Learned counsel further submitted that the Police after investigation has found the offences to be committed by the petitioner and as such, no indulgence is required to be given.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been playing active role right from the beginning of startup project till siphoning off the money and since she has cheated large number of buyers and persons, no indulgence is required to be given to her.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the Police has conducted the investigation and cheating has taken place with several people as such the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel further submitted that husband of the petitioner has still not been arrested and investigation is still going on as per Section 173 (8) Cr.PC.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and in this difficult time of pandemic of Coronavirus (COVID-19) as well as looking to the nature of offence alleged against her and offence being triable by Magistrate and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Nidhi Arora W/o Chandra Prakash Arora, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.568/2019, registered at Police Station Nimrana, District Bhiwadi, provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of alike amount to the (Downloaded on 12/05/2020 at 08:48:25 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3952/2020] satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86/Himanshu Soni 7 (Downloaded on 12/05/2020 at 08:48:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)