Case : MOHD. SALEEM JAFAR VS THE STATE (GOVT.

OF NCT OF DELHI)

BAIL APPLN. 970/2024

Date: 19/03/2024

On behalf of the applicant, an application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to grant anticipatory bail in connection with a case file number 03/2023, which
is registered at the Police Station, New Friends Colony, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections
420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the "IPC"). Issue notice. On behalf of the State, learned APP Mr.
Manoj Pant acknowledges notice. The case's facts include that on February 2, 2021, a complaint against
Mohd. Saleem Jafar (the current applicant), Waseem Jafar, Jyoti Rawat, and M/s Adarsh
Accommodations Pvt. Ltd. were received at P.S. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, from a man named Mahnaz
Hashmi. According to a status report that was submitted to the learned Trial Court, the complainant
revealed, during an investigation at P.S. Sarita Vihar, that all of the necessary documents for this case
were first signed in Mohd. Saleem Jafar's office in New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Thus, on October 26,
2021, the complaint was moved to P.S. New Friends Colony. In her complaint, the complainant claimed
to have received a call in January 2015 from a woman who had revealed some investment plans in a real
estate company called Adarsh Builder. The complainant had at first declined to make any kind of
investment, but Mohd. Saleem Jafar had repeatedly called her and presented himself as the real estate
king. After visiting Mohd. Saleem Jafar's office, the complainant and her husband saw many projects in
Noida, Delhi, and Faridabad; nevertheless, the complainant's husband declined to make any kind of
investment. Mohd. Saleem Jafar then paid the complainant a visit in an attempt to get her to invest in
his business. Additionally, he had persuaded the complainant and her husband to rent two stores, U-6
and U-1 0, at Phase II, Sector 80, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, with the use of documents. In exchange, he had
wanted Rs. 45 lacs from them. After that, the complainant's husband gave Mohd. Saleem Jafar Rs. 3
lakhs in cash in addition to transferring Rs. 42 lacs into his bank account. It is said, notwithstanding, that
the complaint has not yet received control of the stores. Three years later, the complainant and her
spouse went to the accused's office where they met Ms. Jyoti Rawat. She showed them the original
property documents for C-560, Part I, Khasra No. 760, Adarsh Paradise, Sarita Vihar, Part II, New Delhi,
and made an offer to buy two flats for Rs. 98,12,500 to make up for the Rs. 45 lacs they had received in
2015. It is also claimed that the accused sought cash payment for the remaining balance owed on two
apartments. After that, the complainant and her husband were able to arrange for Rs. 35 lacs to be
given in cash to Mohd. Saleem Jafar at his office. Nevertheless, they have not yet received control of
these apartments. The present FIR was registered pursuant to the direction of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saket Courts, vide order dated 16.12.2022, in Ct. Case No. 1152 of 4. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the present accused/applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and he had also joined the investigation earlier. It is further submitted
that complainant's husband had approached the applicant in 2015 for investing in shops situated in
Noida, U.P. and for the same, an agreement was entered into between the parties and due to
unavoidable circumstances, the project in which the shops were booked has yet not been completed
due to objections by Noida Authority. It is argued that a case of civil nature has been converted into a
criminal offence by the complainant, and the complainant has already filed a civil suit for recovery
against the accused. It is also submitted that the present applicant has also filed a writ petition for
quashing of FIR and he had shown his intention before this Court to settle the matter with the
complainant but her counsel had refused to accede to his request. Therefore, it is prayed that present
application for pre-arrest bail be allowed. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, argues that the
allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and he had cheated the complainant by taking
money from her on pretext of making investment in real estate, however, he has not handed over
possession of any flat to her till date. It is further stated that it was during investigation that the present
applicant had received Rs. 42 lacs in his bank account from the complainant. It is also argued that
applicant has not joined investigation despite service of several notices under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., as
result of which, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against him on 01.03.2024 and the proceedings
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against him. It is argued that the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is necessary to recover the documents of the alleged properties in
question as well as for recovery of money that he had allegedly received from the complainant. It is
therefore prayed that the present bail application be dismissed. This Court has heard arguments
addressed on behalf of both the parties, and has gone through the case file.

Reeba Joy

LL.B