TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 14.02.2024 and 02.05.2024. The Special Leave Petitions bearing no. SLP Criminal 7766-7767/2024, assailing dismissal of those two anticipatory bail applications also were dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2024 of the Supreme Court. Till date the accused /applicant has not been arrested. 1.2 Not just that, as discussed hereafter, orders protecting the accused/applicant from arrest were obtained from Magisterial Court as well as the Court of Sessions despite dismissal of the SLPs and upholding of two orders of this court, whereby anticipatory bail applications of the accused/applicant were dismissed. 2. It would be apposite to quote the order dated 02.09.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the above mentioned SLPs: ORDER The I.A. No.147849/2024 is allowed. 2. Heard Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - NCT of Delhi. Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned Senior Counsel appears for the intervenor. 3. Having considered the circumstances in these cases and particularly taking note of the stand taken by the State that the person fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant Nikhil Jain for past 10-15 years. Sushil Singla and Nikhil Jain also closely knew each other. In the month of May/June 2021 Sushil Singla offered Tilak Raj Jain to purchase property bearing no.21, Block E, Prashant Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property") from Nikhil Jain. According to copies of the title documents chain furnished to Tilak Raj Jain, a Lease Deed dated 04.12.1990 pertaining to the subject property was executed by DDA in favour of Devender Kumar, which followed a Perpetual Lease Deed dated 26.03.1991. Thereafter, pertaining to the subject property, DDA executed Conveyance Deed dated 27.08.2021 in favour of co-accused Manjeet Singh, who sold the subject property by way of Sale Deed dated 14.10.2021 in the name of accused/applicant Nikhil Jain. In the said Sale Deed dated 14.10.2021, co-accused Kuldeep and Saajan Mehra, who are close friends of accused Sushil Singla and the accused/applicant Nikhil Jain, signed as witnesses. Immediately thereafter on 28.10.2021, the accused/applicant sold the subject property to the complainant de facto Tilak Raj Jain, towards sale consideration whereof, the latter along with his partner Jitender Arora paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emains a name in fiction. On this aspect, certainly there is no change in circumstances. 5. Another factor, which according to the accused/applicant is change in circumstances is that the co-accused Pradeep Chhikara, a property dealer admitted in police custody, having forged the documents in connivance with co-accused persons; that Pradeep Chhikara got Suraj arrested, and also paid back a substantial amount out of the cheated money to the complainant de facto. This also, to my mind cannot be taken as a change in circumstances. For, in a plethora of judicial pronouncements, the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts including this court have categorically held that the bail courts not being a money recovery forum, return of money or promise thereof cannot be a relevant consideration while deciding a bail application. Whatever amount is paid by the person accused of cheating to the person cheated is at the most towards discharge of civil liability of the former; and such payment does not absolve the accused of his criminal liability. 6. Lastly comes the contention of learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant that it is the accused/applicant who was cheated through the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed by this court, and after receiving copy thereof, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vacated the interim protection. 8.3 On 23.04.2025, the IO informed this court that the accused/applicant joined investigation only during the period when he was under interim protection granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but after withdrawal of protection, the accused/applicant absconded and non-bailable warrants against him were alive. On the next date (26.05.2025), it was informed before this court that the said non-bailable warrants, which had been issued on 25.11.2024 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, were stayed vide order dated 15.01.2025 by the same Magistrate, despite the fact that by then the SLPs had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 8.4 On 26.05.2025, learned prosecutor before this court submitted that dismissal of anticipatory bail applications till the Supreme Court had been duly disclosed in the status report filed by the IO before the learned Magistrate. On the same day, learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant also stated on instructions that even counsel for accused/applicant appearing before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissal of the anticipatory bail application of the accused/applicant till Supreme Court. 10.1 Similarly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also stated in his report dated 30.08.2025 that neither in the anticipatory bail application nor during arguments, dismissal of earlier anticipatory bail applications by this court, followed by dismissal of SLPs by the Supreme Court was disclosed. 11. During arguments, learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP and the IO emphasised that the defence counsel and the APP assisted by the IO before trial court had duly disclosed before the learned Magistrate about dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications till the Supreme Court. 12. A perusal of the application filed on behalf of the accused/applicant for cancellation of non-bailable warrants (copy of the application annexed with report of the learned Magistrate) would show that there is no mention at all in the said application that two anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by this court and the SLPs arising out of the same were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said application for cancellation of non-bailable warrants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Magistrate, clearly disclosing that anticipatory bail application of the accused/applicant had been dismissed by this court. In his order dated 28.02.2025, the learned Magistrate clearly observed this fact. But that application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate going by the assurance of the IO that fresh notice was being issued to the accused/applicant and on the ground that complainant de facto has no locus standi to move such application. 12.5 Clearly, the defence counsel, the investigating officer and the prosecutor concealed from the learned Magistrate about dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications of the accused/applicant till the Supreme Court. But about dismissal of those applications, the learned Magistrate had clear knowledge through his own order dated 25.11.2024 and specific submissions of learned counsel for complainant de facto. So, it is wrong on the part of the learned Magistrate to say that dismissal of anticipatory bail applications was not disclosed to him. 13. Coming to the explanation advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the only explanation rendered by him is that the factum of dismissal of the anticipatory bail applicatio....