VINOD KUMAR THAPA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.328/2019 dtd. 5/11/2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sec. 120B IPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, pertaining to the case, as described in the FIR, are that the Petitioner and the Complainant, Ravinder Kler, a doctor, met at a party in New Delhi in 2017 where the petitioner introduced himself as a property dealer with a long list of eminent clientele. It is stated that the petitioner and the complainant were in touch thereafter and the Petitioner told him about lands available for sale at attractive prices in Dehradun, Uttarakhand and that he knew some owners personally and that he could purchase the lands by paying 20% of the purchase price. It is stated that after initial reluctance, the Complainant went to Uttarakhand along with the petitioner to see the plots. During the visit, the Petitioner introduced the Complainant to one Prashant Thapa, as the Clerk of Patwari from the Land Registration office, who confirmed the position represented by the Petitioner that the prices of lands were low as per the circle rate and promised to extend his co-operation in the registration process. The Complainant through the Petitioner met accused Rajan Sharma who was shown as a colleague of the Petitioner and as a broker to many high-profile politicians and businessmen. The Complainant was made to meet accused Mohd. Zaidi who was shown as working in the same company with the Petitioner and it was told to the complainant that he would help him in selling the plots which the Complainant was about to purchase. The Petitioner convinced the complainant to purchase the farm lands in Dehradun, and when the complainant was diffident about the same the Petitioner proposed that he would also invest 50% of the price through his confidant, one Mr. O.P. Joshi. Over the next few visits to Dehradun, the Petitioner arranged meetings for the complainant with purported owners of fields of land. It is stated that the Complainant in partnership with the Petitioner agreed to invest in properties on the assurance that high yielding returns would enure to the Complainant when the plots will resold. The FIR thereafter mentions that total six agreements were entered into by the Complainant, with co-accused Sudarshan Singh Aswal, Dinesh Chand Ramola, Ashbal Ali, and Bibi Rihanna. The Petitioner invested in one of the six agreements jointly with the Complainant, in rest of the agreements the complainant alone entered with other accused persons. For the sake of clarity the agreements entered into by the Complainant are mentioned below:-

(3.) After entering into the agreements, when the complainant followed the co-accused persons for execution of the sale deeds with the prospective buyers, the Petitioner cited excuses for non-performance of the agreements by the parties which aroused suspicion in the complainant regarding the veracity of the sale agreement deals. It is stated that on enquiry the complainant found that the token payments made by him under different sale agreements had been secretly transferred to the Petitioner's bank account and he discovered that all the purported owners of the lands had connived with the Petitioner to defraud the complainant and did not possess the intention to make good the promises committed in the Agreements to Sell.