The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday granted bail to an accused in the alleged property grab case. The bail plea of accused Arvind Singla, a businessman, was allowed by the Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan.
As per the prosecution, the dispute is with regard to house in Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.
The house was initially owned by Santosh Mehta, wife of Ved Parkash Mehta and mother of Rahul Mehta. She died in the year 1986 and her sister Sushila Kumari residing in London applied for transfer of house in her name on the basis of will. The matter relating to probate of will is pending in this court and alienation of the house in question is stayed.
The counsel for petitioner Arvind Singla, Senior Advocate R S Rai and advocate Anurag Arora, contended that Rahul Mehta executed general power of attorney (GPA) to the extent of 1/3rd share of house in Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, in favour of the petitioner.
The said GPA was cancelled and only thereafter the sale deed was executed in favour of Saurabh Gupta. It was submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since June 11, 2021.
Investigation is complete and no further recovery is to be made. It was submitted that the petitioner himself surrendered before the court.
The UT counsel in reply submitted that the GPA was cancelled by the impersonator on the day when the sale deed was executed by him in favour of Saurabh Gupta, and the petitioner knew who actual Rahul Mehta is.
The amount of Rs 33,00,000 was deposited in the account of the petitioner by Manish Gupta, the ultimate purchaser, and it was revealed in the investigation that apart from the bank transaction, there was a cash transaction of Rs 95,00,000.
An affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the Estate Office stating that he had not used the GPA executed by Rahul Mehta, whereas he got a share of sale consideration.
It was argued that he facilitated the sanctioning of loan in favour of Saurabh Gupta by writing a letter to HDFC Bank which stated that he was owner of the extent of 50 per cent of the house in question and had no objection if due deligence is carried out.
The said letter was factually incorrect. The UT counsel submitted that though the petitioner himself surrendered, there is apprehension of his absconding.
The bench held the allegations are that impersonator cancelled the GPA and executed the sale deed in favour of Saurabh Gupta.
The co-accused were granted bail by this court. Considering the custody period and the fact that conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail.
