BAIL APPLN./13/2012 of DIMPLE BHATIA Vs STATE

$~2INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 13/2012

DIMPLEBHATIA

Through Counsel

Petitioner

versus

STATE

RespondentThroughMr.Suni! Sharma, APP with SI PremSingh, P.S. Gandhi Nagar.

CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICEV.K. SHALI

ORDER%21.02.2012

1.This is petitionfor grant of an anticipatorybailin respectofFIRno.183/2011,u/S420/120B/34IPGinrespectof whichchargesheethasbeenfiledagainsttheotherco-accusedpersons.FIRno.183/2011,u/S420/120B/34IPGinrespectof whichchargesheethasbeenfiledagainsttheotherco-accusedpersons.

2.The allegationsagainst the petitionerare that she along with theotherco-accusedpersonsnamelyShardaBhatiaandSeemaBhatiahavecheatedthecomplainant,Smt.LaxmiGuptaforsellingthepropertybearingno.X/1281,GaliNo.2,RajgarhColony, GandhiNagar,Delhi for valuableconsideration,whileas,thesaidpropertywaspresentedtobe freefrom aj]encumbrances,burden,sale,surety,decreemortagage.Will,gift, loan, lien, charge, security,etc.

The possessionof the saidpropertyis purportedto have beentransferredto the complainant,however,later on, it transpiredthat the aforesaidpropertyhad earlierbeen mortgagedby thepetitionerand other co-accusedwith the SyndicateBank, NirmanVihar and loan was taken to which the present petitionerwas aguarantor.

4.These facts came to the knowledgeof the purchasersonly whena noticeof takingpossessionof the propertywas receivedbythem from the SyndicateBank, Nirman Vihar.5.The contentionof the learnedcounselfor the petitioneris thattheother co-accusedpersonshave alreadybeen grantedbailand so far as the presentpetitioneris concerned,she does notrequireany custodialinterrogation.It has also been contendedthat she has settledthe matterwith the SyndicateBank and aNo-DuesCertificatehas been issuedby the SyndicateBank thathas also been annexed with the paper book.6.I have consideredthe submissionsmade by the learnedcounselfor the petitionerand gone through the record.7.Thisis thefourthapplicationby thepetitionerforgrantofanticipatorybail.Three applicationswere filed by the petitionerearlierbeforetheCourtofSessionsJudge,whohastheconcurrentpowers.Thelastapplicationwasrejectedon

5.11.2011.After the rejectionof the last application,it seemsthatthepetitionerhasnowtriedtoinsulateherlibertybyarrivingat settlementwiththeSyndicateBankbut merelybecause the settlementis purportedto have been arrived at withthe SyndicateBank, this does not ipso facto guaranteethat thepetitionerhas not committedthe offence.The petitionerneeds,to be interrogatedby the investigatingagency for the purpose ofarriving at settlement.

So far as the questionof grant of bail to the other co-accusedpersonsis concerned,that has been grantedunder the provisionof Section439 and not Section438 Cr.P.C.The learnedcounselhas reliedupon case titledMiss HarshSawhneyVs. Union Territory/(Chandigarh)1978Cri. L.J.774, whereinthe anticipatorybail was grantedto the petitionerin the said case on the groundthat the custodialinterrogationwas not required.

I have gone throughthe said judgment.Merely on accountofthe fact that the bail has been grantedto the petitionerin thesaid case does not mean that the bail has to be givenin everyother case.The grant of bail is essentiallyregulatedby judicialdiscretionon certainprinciples.In the instant case, I feel sincethe petitionerhas alreadyexhaustedher rightof applyingfor

anticipatorybail on three earlier occasionscoupledwith the factthat the allegationsagainst the petitionerare that of conspiracyandcheatingagainstthecomplainant,I feelit is not casewhere the discretionof bail shouldbe exercisedin favourof thepetitioner.

11.It has also been stated that the petitionerhas been declaredasa proclaimedoffender.

12.Accordingly,the anticipatorybail of the petitioneris rejected.

V.K. SHALI, 3

FEBRUARY21, 2012RN