The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted bail to an accused in an alleged property grabbing case. A bench of Justice Avnish Jhingan allowed the bail plea of accused businessman Arvind Singla.
According to the prosecution, the dispute is regarding the house in Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.
The house was initially with Santosh Mehta, wife of Ved Prakash Mehta and mother of Rahul Mehta. He died in the year 1986 and his sister Sushila Kumari, who lived in London, applied for the transfer of the house in his name on the basis of a will. The matter relating to probate of the will is pending in this court and the separation of the House under consideration has been stayed.
Counsel for petitioner Arvind Singla, senior advocate RS Rai and advocate Anurag Arora argued that Rahul Mehta executed General Power of Attorney (GPA) to the extent of 1/3rd of the house in Sector 37-A, Chandigarh. Petitioner.
The said GPA was canceled and only then the sale deed was executed in favor of Saurabh Gupta. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since June 11, 2021.
The investigation is complete and no further recovery is to be made. It was argued that the petitioner himself surrendered before the court.
In response, the counsel for the UT submitted that the GPA was canceled by the impersonator on the day he executed the sale deed in favor of Saurabh Gupta, and the petitioner knew who the real Rahul Mehta was.
An amount of Rs 33,00,000 was deposited in the account of the petitioner by Manish Gupta, the final buyer and investigation revealed that there were cash transactions of Rs 95,00,000 apart from bank transactions.
An affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the estate office stating that he had not utilized the GPA executed by Rahul Mehta even though he had received his share of the sale consideration.
It was argued that he had written a letter to HDFC Bank facilitating the sanction of loan in favor of Saurabh Gupta, stating that he was the owner of 50 per cent of the house in question and that if due diligence was done, he would There is no objection. ,
The said letter was factually incorrect. The counsel for the UT said that though the petitioner himself has surrendered, he is likely to be absconding.
The bench alleged that the impersonator quashed the GPA and executed the sale deed in favor of Saurabh Gupta.
This court had granted bail to the co-accused. Taking into account the period of custody and the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail.
,