MOHD. SALEEM JAFAR VS THE STATE (GOVT.

OF NCT OF DELHI)
BAIL APPLN. 970/2024
Date: 19/03/2024

1. 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").

2. Issue notice. On behalf of the State, learned APP Mr. Manoj Pant acknowledges notice.

3. 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.

5. 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.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, and has gone
through the case file.