Samir Sood vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of fraud and criminal breach of trust. The Court found that the signature of Mohan Singh on the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2018, purportedly signed on 05.05.2018, created doubt, especially as Mohan Singh reportedly never visited the USA, nor did the complainant visit India to sign the agreement on that date. The Court noted that the statement of Mohan Singh before the police required appreciation for further investigation. The Court also found it suspicious that the petitioner was appointed as an authorized person via GPA only in July 2018, yet the agreement to sell was dated April 2018, with signatures in May 2018. The fact that no payment had been received by the complainant till date, despite the petitioner's claims, and the petitioner's alleged purchase of alternate property based on oral instructions without specific authorization, further weighed against granting bail. The Court concluded that the cumulative facts and circumstances necessitated custodial interrogation of the petitioner, and therefore, no indulgence could be granted. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, a real estate broker, is seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered for offences including cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant, an NRI, alleged that the petitioner approached him to sell his plot in Gurugram for Rs. 1.77 crores. The petitioner claims to have found a buyer for Rs. 1.5 crores, and an agreement to sell was executed. The complainant signed the agreement in the USA, with the petitioner as a witness. A General Power of Attorney (GPA) was subsequently executed in favour of the petitioner in the USA. The petitioner states that the sale proceeds were deposited into his account as the complainant lacked an Indian bank account. He further claims to have purchased alternate property for the complainant based on oral instructions, paying earnest money. The complainant alleges fraud, disputing the authenticity of documents and dates. A civil suit for recovery is pending between the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No.145 dated 09.10.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, considering the allegations of fraud and criminal breach of trust concerning a property transaction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he acted as a real estate broker and facilitated a property sale for the complainant. He presented documents like the agreement to sell and GPA, supported by passport entries to show his travel to the USA. He argued that the sale proceeds were handled transparently, with taxes and penalties paid. He also highlighted the pendency of a civil suit for recovery and a prior police inquiry that found him innocent. He claimed the complainant did not pay his brokerage and cancelled the GPA. He offered to deposit the remaining sale consideration. He relied on the initial police inquiry report and the fact that a civil suit was pending. Respondent's arguments: The complainant and the State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner committed fraud. They questioned the authenticity of the agreement to sell, particularly the signatures and dates, and pointed out inconsistencies with the civil suit pleadings. They emphasized that the complainant never received the sale proceeds and that the petitioner's actions, including using his address for the complainant's PAN and Aadhaar cards, warranted custodial interrogation.