| |
CDJ 2026 DHC 045
|
| Court : High Court of Delhi |
| Case No : Bail Appln. No. 215 of 2026, CRL.M.A. Nos. 1746 & 1747 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA |
| Parties : Subhash @ Subhash Chand Versus State Of Govt Of NCT Of Delhi |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Manish Kumar, Avinash Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP. |
| Date of Judgment : 19-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
| Subject |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 467 IPC
- Section 468 IPC
- Section 471 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 34 IPC
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Regular bail
- Fraud
- Forgery
- Cheque bounce
- Investigation
- Chargesheet
- Property dealer
- Agreement to Sell
3. Summary:
The accused applied for regular bail in FIR No.220/2025 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused, posing as a property dealer, defrauded the complainant’s mother by selling a house, taking advance money, and promising to construct a new house on a plot that was never allotted, subsequently forging documents and issuing a bounced cheque of Rs.61,50,000. The accused contends he is in custody, the trial will be lengthy, and denies any fraud or forgery, asserting the plot was lawfully acquired. The State highlights that the plot was an open land, the allotment letter was forged, and several co‑accused remain untraced. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and ongoing investigation, the court found it premature to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application and related applications were dismissed, and the order was communicated to the jail superintendent.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Judgment (Oral)
1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.220/2025 of PS Ghazipur for offence under Section 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC.
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Lalit Kumar.
3. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is as follows. The now deceased mother of the complainant de facto was defrauded by the accused/applicant in the month of June-July 2024 by the accused/applicant, who was working as a property dealer and got their house bearing No. B-127, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar, Delhi vacated and sold the same, after depositing some money in the bank account of mother of the complainant de facto and depositing the remaining entire sale consideration in his company's account. Thereafter, the accused/applicant shifted the complainant de facto and her mother to a rented flat, assuring to pay rent of the same and promising to build another house for them at plot no. 233, Block C-1, New Kondli, Delhi within six months. For that purpose, an Agreement to Sell also was executed between the accused/applicant and the now deceased mother of the complainant de facto. Subsequently, the accused/applicant also executed an Agreement to Sell and attendant documents in favour of the now deceased mother of the complainant de facto with regard to plot no. 233, Block C-1, New Kondli, Delhi and in that regard he also took Rs.61,50,000/- from her. But neither any house was constructed on the said plot no. 233, Block C-1, New Kondli, Delhi, nor the amount was returned by the accused/applicant. On account of shock, mother of the complainant de facto passed away after which the accused/applicant in presence of witnesses issued a cheque to refund the amount of Rs.61,50,000/-, but that cheque bounced.
4. It is contended on behalf of accused/applicant that he is in custody since July 2025 and chargesheet has already been filed, citing 19 prosecution witnesses, so trial would not conclude soon. It is further contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant that the alternate property, which is plot no. 233, Block C-1 New Kondli, Delhi was allotted to one Teekaram by DDA and he sold the same to Kishan Chand and Kishan Chand sold the same to the accused/applicant and the same was sold away by him to the mother of the complainant de facto. It is further contended that the accused/applicant did not commit any fraud or forgery as alleged by prosecution.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for State submits that five more accused persons are involved in this case but they are not traceable, so their arrest is awaited. It is also contended with the help of material collected during investigation that according to DDA, the alleged plot no. 233, Block C-1, New Kondli, Delhi was an open plot of land, not occupied by anyone and was never allotted to the accused/applicant. It is contended that the accused/applicant forged the allotment letter issued by DDA and sold away the same by way of an Agreement to Sell and other documents after forging the signatures of mother of the complainant de facto as well as signatures of the alleged witnesses. It is also contended by learned APP for State, on instructions of the IO that not just the alleged allotment letter issued by DDA is a forged one, but also that neither Teekaram nor Kishan Chand nor any of the witnesses whose name appeared as witnesses are traceable.
6. Learned APP for State also strongly opposes the bail application because further investigation to trace out the trail of money is continuing and in the process, the accused/applicant also gave in writing to the complainant de facto that he wanted to settle the dispute, so he was issuing her a cheque of Rs.61,50,000/- but that cheque also got bounced. With regard to that cheque, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the same was pertaining to some loan transaction.
7. Considering the overall circumstances, I do not find it a fit stage to release the accused/applicant on bail. Therefore, the Bail Application is dismissed. The accompanying applications also stand disposed of.
8. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
|
| |
