SHEFALI NARANG Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Shefali Narang under section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 149/2019 u/s. 420/406/120-B IPC.

(2.) Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. The petitioner is residing with her mother in a DDA Flat and has filed divorce proceedings against her husband. The husband of the petitioner is running a well reputed and prestigious gym namely Olympia in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi for the last more than 20 years. The husband of the petitioner had initially purchased the basement of the premises in question bearing no. S-569 Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi-110048 sometime in the year 1998. Later on first and second floor of the above mentioned premises was also purchased. He was in occupation of ground floor of the said premises. For the last two years due to the ongoing sealing drive, the husband of the petitioner suffered business loss. The husband of the petitioner, therefore, decided to sell the respective floors of the premises to the complainant. In accordance with the agreement to sell, certain amounts were paid by the complainant to the husband of the petitioner. The sale transaction was to be completed on or before 30.11.2018. The complainant was delaying the payment and a legal notice was also issued to him in this regard. Instead of paying the balance amount of sale consideration, the complainant in order to harass the petitioner instituted civil suit against the petitioner in respect of the said premises for specific performance and also sought injunction restraining the petitioner form selling the said premises. It is a matter of record that petitioner on 09.08.2019 got the registration of the sale-deed done in respect of her portions i.e. first and second floor in the said premises in favour of the complainant. The complainant has made payment of the necessary loan amount to the financial institution like India Bulls (Rs. Two Crores) for second floor and from Reliance Capitals (Rs. Three Crores) for second and first floor flats. No amount was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. No useful purpose will be served by keeping her in custody as she has no role in the commission of offence. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required and in these circumstances, it is prayed that petitioner be granted anticipatory bail and SHO/IO be directed to release the petitioner in the event of her arrest.

(3.) The anticipatory bail application is opposed by Ld. APP for the State on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. She is involved in offence of cheating and she in criminal conspiracy with other co-accuseds has misrepresented the status that property in question is free from all encumbrance. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the application.