Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Land Fraudsters Beware: High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Rs. 25 Crore Scam Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant Judgement, the Delhi High Court, in a judgment delivered on October 17, 2023, denied anticipatory bail to the accused in a case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and fraud amounting to over Rs. 25 crores. The judgment, delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, highlights the gravity of economic offenses and emphasizes the need for thorough custodial investigation in such cases.

The case, FIR No. 71/2022, registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, pertains to fraudulent activities related to the sale of a Farm House. The complainant alleged that the accused, including the petitioner Trilok Chand Chaudhary, had deceived him into parting with a substantial sum of money for a property they did not own or possess.

Justice Amit Bansal's observations in the judgment underscore the seriousness of the accusations and the need for a detailed investigation:

"Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free status... These land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress."

The court also referred to precedents, including the case of Pratibha Manchanda and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 181, which emphasized the exceptional circumstances required for anticipatory bail in economic offenses.

The judgment concluded that granting anticipatory bail to the accused would hinder the ongoing investigation, given the serious nature of the offenses and the substantial amount involved. It further noted the applicant's habitual involvement in similar cases and the absence of cooperation in providing necessary documents.

As a result, the interim protection previously granted to the applicant was withdrawn, and the anticipatory bail application was dismissed. The deposited amount of Rs. 2 crores by the applicant remains subject to the outcome of the trial.

This ruling serves as a stern warning to those involved in fraudulent land transactions and underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing economic offenses with utmost seriousness.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2023

TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY  vs STATE

Latest Legal News