While considering a bail application seeking regular bail in a case filed under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Delhi High Court granted bail to a property dealer, who was accused of defrauding a 70-year-old widow of Rs.1.59 crores.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that “the petitioner is in J.C. since 18.08.2021 and the maximum punishment provided for the offences for which he has been charged is up to 7 years. The offence relates to the year 2019 and the FIR was filed in the year 2021. There are allegations and counter allegations which can only be looked into at the time of trial. Charge sheet has already been filed and now no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in J.C”

Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Amit Ahlawat appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that, a complaint was made by a 70-year-old widow, who claimed that her daughter-in-law had used the services of 'Urban Clap' for an at-home salon appointment, during which Mrs. Babli Tomar had visited their house. Babli Tomar had allegedly informed the complainant that her husband, Arvind Kumar (petitioner), worked as a property dealer and could provide her with excellent property deals in Delhi. Based on this representation, the complainant had contacted the petitioner. Once the property was selected, the complainant alleged that the petitioner repeatedly delayed the execution of registered property documents. Ultimately, the petitioner informed the complainant that the property deal had been cancelled by the owner, and she would only receive Rs.70 lakhs out of the total sum of Rs.1.59 Crores. He claimed that the remaining amount had been paid to government offices such as the Registrar, DDA, BSES, Electricity, and Jal Board. However, the complainant asserted that the petitioner failed to provide any proof of these payments to the respective departments. The petitioner also promised to pay the remaining Rs.70 lakhs by mid-December 2019 but ultimately failed to do so.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had already undergone a sufficient period of incarceration, considering the offenses for which he had been charged.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since August 18, 2021, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the offenses he had been charged with was up to 7 years.

The Bench pointed that the offense in question pertained to the year 2019, while the FIR was filed in 2021.

There were allegations and counter-allegations that can only be properly examined during the trial, added the Bench.

Considering the duration of the petitioner's incarceration and the nature of the charges outlined in the charge sheet, the High Court determined that there was no further purpose in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

Consequently, the High Court granted the bail application and directed that the petitioner to be released on bail.

Cause Title: Arvind Kumar v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 6866]

Click here to read/ download the Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Rajnish Bhatnagar

Pankaj Bajpai