KULSHRESTHA DHINGRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are husband and wife. Petitioner no. 1 is the brother of the complainant of this case. THEy are seeking anticipatory bail as they apprehend arrest by the police in connection with the criminal case got registered against them by the complainant vide FIR No. 06/2010 under Sections 327/380/506/34 IPC.

(2.) The petitioner no. 1 and his sister, the complainant, have inherited one commercial property in Malviya Nagar from their deceased father THE complainant is a widow. Her deceased husband owned one residential flat in Sheikh Sarai which is in occupation of the two petitioners herein. It appears that the petitioner no. 1 and the complainant decided to sell the property in Malviya Nagar and accordingly they sold the same for Rs. 70 lacs. THE complainant alleged in her complaint to the police that on 4th January, 2010 when the sale deal was struck the purchasers brought the cash payment of Rs. 50 lacs to her house in two bags containing Rs. 25 lacs each. THE two petitioners were also present at that time. Balance payment of sale consideration was allegedly made by the purchasers by way of cheques. It was further alleged that after the payment of sale consideration had been made by the purchasers, the complainant, the petitioners and the purchasers then went for registration of the sale deed. After getting the sale deed registered she came back to her house along with her brother and bhabhi. At that time, her brother and her bhabhi beat her up and went away after taking away the entire cash payment of Rs. 50 lacs which had been kept by her in her house before leaving to get the sale deed registered and while going from her house the petitioners also took away another sum of Rs. 5 lacs which was also lying in the house besides some jewellery items. From the allegations made in the FIR it appears that the complainant wanted her residential flat back from her brother who was occupying the same and it also appears that some MoU was executed between the brother and the sister. Since the petitioner no. 1 apprehended that he might have to vacate the flat in Sheikh Sarai he along with his wife while leaving the complainant's house on 4th January, 2010 tore that MOU also. This is the case of the investigating agency.

(3.) The bail application was opposed on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pawan Behl primarily on the ground that custodial interrogation of both the petitioners would be required for effecting recoveries of the balance amount of Rs. 5 lacs of the complainant which also they had taken away from the house of the complainant on 4th January, 2010 as also the jewellery articles.