PANKAJ ROHILLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.310 dated 18.08.2019 registered under Sections 406, 420, 511, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') (Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 IPC added later) at Police Station Sushant Lok, District Gurugram.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR was registered at the instance of one Anubha Sandhu, who is a senior citizen and an NRI living in Australia, with the allegations that she is owner of Plot No.984 in C Block, Sushant Lok, Gurugram and when she came to India, she found that somebody with fake identity and on the basis of some fake documents is trying to sell her plot. The proposed buyer of the property was Lotus Developers and one Mahesh Prajapati and Rajender @ Raj Kumar are the sellers, whose mobile numbers are 9654430884 and 9999624889, respectively. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint with the SHO and the complainant gave another complaint when she came to know that one Rohit Bakshi, whose mobile No.9810636111 was trying to obtain a loan on her plot for an amount of Rs.2.5 crores on the basis of false/fake papers from Tata Finance. The agent for the seller at that time were also Mahesh Prajapati, Jaipal and the petitioner - Pankaj Rohilla. Thereafter, when the police investigated the complaint, the Investigating Officer recovered the original stamp papers, agreement to sell, etc. from Lotus Property Developers as well as the fake Aadhar Cards, which were prepared by posing a lady as impersonator in place of the complainant. The Investigating Officer also recovered the loan papers from Tata Finance and with the aforesaid allegations, the FIR was registered.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the primary allegations against the petitioner are that when the co-accused Rajender @ Raj Kumar was arrested, he made a disclosure statement nominating the petitioner in the case stating that he has taken out the documents of the plot of the complainant, after both of them hatched a conspiracy to sell the plot. It is further submitted that except the same, there is no other evidence against the petitioner.