Virendra Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicants Virendra Singh and Sonu Singh seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 270 of 2024, under Section 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicants induced the informant to purchase plot from them saying that they are developing the property. Deal was struck for Rs.22 Lakh. Out of which Rs.10 Lakh were transferred in the account of the applicant Virendra Singh. He also took the informant at a plot and handed over its possession saying that very soon sale deed would be executed. But subsequently, it was revealed that that property did not belong to the applicant Virendra Singh. When continuously insisted for return of money or to provide another plot, according to the FIR, the applicants called the informant at the Registry office at took Rs.7 Lakh from him in the name of executing the sale deed, which they did not return.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant Virendra Singh has taken Rs.10 Lakh in his account, but that money he has given to the land owner. He disputes Rs.7 Lakh as alleged by the informant that have been given to the applicants. He would submit that land owner is unwell. As soon as, he recovers the money would be transferred to the informant.

Learned State counsel would submit that Rs.10 Lakh were transferred by the informant in the accounts of the applicant no.1, which is established by the account details.

It is a case of cheating. The applicants were not the owners of the property, which they agreed to sell the informant. According to the FIR, Rs.17 lakh were taken by the applicants together. The allegations are jointly made against both the applicants. Rs.10 Lakh were online transferred in the account of the applicant Virendra Singh and Rs.7 lakh were given in cash to the both the applicants, but they did not execute the sale deed.

It is a case of cheating since inception. As per allegations, the informant has been cheated to the tune of Rs.17 Lakh. The money has yet not been returned back.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

The anticipatory bail application is rejected.