PARAMJIT SINGH  Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 1 of 7

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021
PARAMJIT SINGH ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI ….. Respondent
Through : Mr. H irein Sharma, APP for State
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
O R D E R
% 07.01.2021
HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
CRL. M. A. 176 /2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021
1. The instant application is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying
for bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No.306 dated
19.08.2020 , registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar , New Delhi for
offences Under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
2. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, learned cou nsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested by the police in the said
FIR and hence this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed.
3. The allegation in the FIR is that the complainant , one Mr . Sanjay
Syal, was looking for an accommodation which would be suitable to meet
need s of his specially able d girl child. It is stated in the FIR that the
complainant approached one Mr. Anil Seth who was known to his neighbour
and is running a business of property deal ing in South Delhi. It is stated that
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 2 of 7

Mr. Ani l Seth introduced him to one Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, another
property broker. The said Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma mentioned about the
sale of a property bearing No. 50 at Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi
(hereinafter cal led as ‘the property’) , owned by one Mr. Jagdev Singh
Dhillon staying at Canada. Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma assured the
complainant that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon had executed a Power of
Attorney in the name of his brother -in-law, Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhillon , for
the purpose of sale of the property and had authorised him to enter into
Agreement to Sell the said property and to receive consideration for the
same. It is stated that Mr. Suresh Kumar Sharma introduced the complainant
to Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sandhu, th e petitioner herein, his son Mr. Mandeep
Singh Sandhu and Mr. Jaswer Grewal, stating that all of them know Mr.
Jagdev Singh Dhillon and they have got family relations with each other. It
is stated that all the above named persons assured the complainant th at they
would help him in getting a very good deal in respect of the sale of the
abovementioned property. It is stated in the FIR that on believing the
representations of Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sandhu, the petitioner herein, his son
Mr. Mandeep Singh Sandhu and Mr. Jaswer Grewal the complainant agreed
to negotiate for the purchase of the said property. It is stated in the FIR that
the complainant inspected the property and he was satisfied with the
property. It is also stated that Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon assured him that
he is the Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon vide power
of attorney dated 21.1 1.2018 , a copy of the same was also handed over to
him. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.5,25,00,000 /- (Rupees Five
Crores Twenty Five L akhs only). An Agreement to Sell was entered into
between the complainant and Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon being the Power
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 3 of 7

of Attorney holder of Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon who is the owner of the
property. It is stated in the FIR that out of total consideratio n of
Rs.5,25,00,000 /- the complainant has paid Rs.84,50,000/ – (Rs. 82,50,000/ –
through RTGS/DD/Cheque and Rs. 2,00,000/ – in cash) for purchasing the
aforesaid property. It is also stated in the FIR that the complainant requested
Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon to furnish the contact details of the owner of the
property Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon for ensuring the receipt of the part
payment of the property and to expedite the execution of Sale Deed and
handing over of possession of the aforesaid property. It is st ated that Mr.
Amarjeet Singh Dhillon provided an e -mail ID being
jagdevsinghdhillon583@gmail.com and he was assured that the said e -mail
ID belongs to Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon . It is stated that in the e -mail sent to
Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon the complainan t asked him to confirm whether he
has received the first installment paid towards part payment for sale of the
property . It is stated in the FIR that on 06.02 .2019 , a reply was received
through e -mail ID jagdevsinghdhillon583@gmail.com acknowledging the
receipt of the part consideration. It is stated that the e -mail dated 06.02.2019
stated that further payments with respect to the sale of the aforesaid property
also be made in favor of Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon . It is stated that a
second e -mail was sent on 07.02.2019 by the complainant stating that the
payment of Rs.20,00,000/ – has been given to Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon
through pay orders and in cash. It is stated in the FIR that after getting the
said confirmation the complainant called for a meeting wi th Mr. Suresh
Kumar Sharma , the petitioner, Mr. Mandeep Singh Sandhu, Mr. Jaswer
Grewal, Amarjeet Singh Dhillon and Amritpal Singh Dhillon at his
residence, to enquire about the progress of the execution of sale deed and
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 4 of 7

delivery of possession and also to find out whether Mr. Jagdev Singh
Dhillon would come to India for the execution of the Sale Deed. It is stated
in the FIR that all the persons kept on giving assurances about the arrival of
Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon and execution of the Sale Deed and it wa s further
assured that possession would be given to him soon. The complainant states
that he was asked to make further payments in the meantime for the sale of
the aforesaid property. It is stated that some e -mails exchanged between Mr.
Jagdev Singh Dhillo n and Mr. Amarjeet Singh Dhillon were shown to him
to show Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon was in touch in respect of the sale of the
property. It is stated that the complainant came across a Public Notice dated
26.11.2019 in NavBharat Times, Delhi Edition , given by an advocate on
behalf of Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon stating that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon
has neither sold the said property to anyone nor has he entered into any
Agreement to Sell with anyone in respect of the aforesaid property . The
Public Notice also stated that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon has not issued any
power of attorney in respect of the said property nor has he autho rized any
person to sell it. It is stated in the FIR that all the accused including the
petitioner are trying to evade the attempts ma de by the complainant to
contact them . On the basis of the said complaint the FIR has been registered
for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
4. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. before the Princi pal District & Sessions Judge, South East
District, Saket Court , New Delhi . The said Application has been dismissed
by an order dated 12.11.2020.
5. Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP appearing for the State . Mr.
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 5 of 7

Abhimanyu Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends
that a reading of the FIR would show that this is purely a civil case. He
would state that the Agreement to Sell has been entered into on the basis on
a valid Power of Attorney executed before the authorities of the Indian
Embassy at Canada. He would state that a reading of the Power of Attorney
dated 21. 11.2018 shows that it is in furtherance to an earlier Power of
Attorney dated 21. 09.2018 , and that in the Power of Attorney Mr. Jagdev
Singh Dhillon has confirm ed and accept ed all the acts, representations,
execution and payments received by Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhillon on his
behalf . He would state that both the Power of Attorneys have been executed
before the authoriti es to which the authorities have affixed their seal .
6. It is also stated by Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari , learned counsel for the
petitioner that a S uit bearing No. CS 2725/2020 has been filed before the
Civil Judge district Jalandhar for a declaration that the Pow er of Attorney
dated 2 1.10.2019 executed by Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon in favour of Mr.
Amarjeet Singh Dhillon is a valid genuine legal document and enforceable
in the eyes of law on which Notice has been issued by an order dated
03.12.2020 by the Civil Judg e, Senior Division (NRI Cases), Jalandhar.
7. He would state that the petitioner has no role in the transaction s as he
is neither the vendor nor the property dealer and h e is being implicated in
this case.
8. Per contra, Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP appearing for the State
states that Mr. Jagdev Singh Dhillon has joined the investigation and that he
has stated that he has not issued any Power of Attorney regarding the
property nor has he authorised any person to enter into Agreement to Sell
with regard to the said property. He would contend that the petition er is a
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 6 of 7

part of a deep rooted conspiracy for deceiving the complainant. It is also
stated that the amount of Rs. 84,50,000/ – has been distributed between all
the conspirators.
9. A reading of the FIR shows th at the instant case is not a pure civil
case and it involves forgery of documents. The allegation s made against the
petitioner are grave. The allegation is that the complainant has been induced
to enter into an Agreement to Sell for the property on the bas is of a Power of
Attorney , the veracity of which is yet to be investigated and the document is
yet to be recovered. It is to be ascertained as to whether the e -mail ID of Mr.
Jagdev Singh Dhillon which was provided to the complainant is genuine or
not. A substantial sum of Rs.84,50,000/ – has been paid by the complainant
which is to be recovered. Some amount of money has also been received by
the petitioner and his son.
10. It is well settled that while considering an application under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. the court has to consider the gravity of the offence, nature of
evidence on record against the accused, likelihood of the accused
absconding or evading the process of law and the likelihood of the accused
tampering with the evidence. The Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. , reported as (2005) 4 SCC 303 , observed as under:
19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several purposes. The
accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding
various facet s of motive, preparation, commission and
aftermath of the crime and the connection of other
persons, if any, in the crime. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may provide
information leading to discovery of material facts. It
may be necessary t o curtail his freedom in order to
enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance
2021:DHC:48BAIL APPLN. 51 /2021 Page 7 of 7

and to protect witnesses and persons connected with
the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance,
to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or
other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of
the process of investigation. The legality of the
proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application
under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the
investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional sco pe
of interference by the court in the process of
investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not
interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the
arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An
interim order restraining arrest, if passed while
dealing with an application under Section 438 of the
Code will amount to interference in the investigation,
which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438
of the Code.

11. Keeping in mind that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are
grave, that there are allegations of forgery of documents which are yet to be
recovered , the amount of Rs.84,50,000/ – which has been given by the
complainant is yet to be recovered and the possibility of the applicant
tampering with the evidence cannot be ru led out, this court is not inclined to
allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.306 dated 19.08.2020 Under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
12. The bail applicatio n is dismissed.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
JANUARY 07, 2021
rs

2021:DHC:48