YASHPAL RAIKAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Ravindra C.P.Navelkar, Yashpal A.Raikar, Smt.Fermeena P.Khunte and Pradeep Khunte seek bail in FIR No.131/2008 under Section 406/420/409/120B IPC registered with Police Station Economic Offences Wing, on 07.08.2008 on Nageshwar Pandey's complaint alleging cheating of Rs.18 crores on the pretext to sell 35 acres land in Goa by the petitioners. An Agreement to Sell dated 08.01.2007 was executed at Delhi. On 19.09.2007 Yaspal Raiker, Ravindra Navelkar's attorney, executed sale deed in favour of M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. represented by him (Sh.Nageshwar Pandey) at Concanna, Goa. Subsequently, he came to know that the land in question was already under mortgage with Goa Co-operative bank and was sold to Smt.Nirupa Pawar in an auction on 29.03.2006. The petitioners suppressed these material facts and had no clear title to convey.

(2.) AFTER dismissal of anticipatory bail application, the petitioners surrendered on 09.01.2009 and were remanded to police custody till 17.01.2009. On 17.02.2009 while seeking regular bail, they expressed desire to resolve the matter through Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. With parties's consent interim bail was granted as an interim measure to settle the dispute. On 24.03.2009 settlement with M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. before the Mediation Centre was reported. Crl.M.A.No.7216/2009 was moved in bail application No.314/2009 for cancellation of interim bail. On 03.02.2010 there was a joint request for adjournment as M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. was exploring possibility of settlement with Mr.Nageshwar Pandey. On 24.05.2010 M/s Anirva Developers urged to cancel the interim bail as cheques issued by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.35 crores had bounced. Finally, by an order dated 09.09.2010, interim bail granted to the petitioners on 17.02.2009 was withdrawn. Petitioners challenged the order and Supreme Court granted interim bail pending further orders. While disposing of Special Leave Petitions, Supreme Court granted limited liberty to the petitioners to move High Court for grant of bail in view of 'fresh' settlement between the parties which was being finalized in the form of a consent decree before the competent court as informed by the parties. The petitioners, thereafter, moved the bail applications.

(3.) DIRECTIONS were issued to the parties on 03.04.2013 to disclose following facts on affidavits: