HEMANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.208 dated 21.5.2019 under Sections 406, 420, 506/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Hisar City, District Hisar.

(2.) The FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Gaytri Devi, wherein it has been alleged that her husband had been serving Indian Navy, and that after his retirement they sold their land measuring 15 acres in the year 2012 in their native village Kikrala and went to Madhya Pradesh to buy land where her husband met Santosh, property dealer who showed some land to them and later introduced complainant's husband to Hemant Sharma (petitioner). A deal was struck by complainant's husband for purchase of land and an amount of Rs.15 lacs was transferred from the bank account of the complainant into bank account of Hemant Sharma on 26.9.2012. The deal was struck for purchase of land measuring 110 acres at the rate of Rs.1.25 lacs per acre which had been settled orally. It is further alleged that subsequently on 15.10.2012 another amount of Rs.65 lacs was transferred to the account of Hemant Sharma from the account of the complainant and yet another amount of Rs.65 lacs was deposited in the account of Hemant Sharma through RTGS. It is thus alleged that a total amount of Rs.1 crore 45 lacs was paid to Hemant Sharma. It is further case of the prosecution that when the complainant and her husband again met Hemant Sharma at village Chhattarpur after about 10/15 days, he assured to get sale deeds registered after harvesting season is over. It is further alleged that subsequently complainant's husband namely Om Parkash kept on visiting Madhya Pradesh frequently and entered into separate agreement with Avdesh for purchase of land measuring 300 acres. It is alleged that pursuant thereto land measuring 225 acres was transferred to complainant's husband but the remaining 75 acres had not been transferred till date and Avdesh had thus defrauded complainant's husband in this manner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that in fact no agreement had ever been entered into with the petitioner for sale/purchase of any property and that it is not believable that the complainant would have transferred huge amount to the petitioner without there being any written agreement in respect of the proposed sale of land. Learned counsel has submitted that in fact the complainant had entered into an agreement with Avdesh only on 30.7.2012 and that as per the said agreement (Annexure P-2), the said Avdesh was to facilitate sale of land by various small land owners in favour of the complainant's husband and that the amount which had been transferred in the account of the petitioner had in fact been transferred for the said purpose as the petitioner happened to be relative of Avdesh.