The Patiala House Court, New Delhi, has granted anticipatory bail in a criminal case arising from a dispute concerning the ownership and possession of Hotel Sarovar Portico, Vasant Kunj.
The FIR alleged that a group of masked individuals stormed the hotel and attempted to take control of the premises. According to the complainant, the hotel was under lawful lease and operation. However, the applicant claimed ownership of the property based on legal documents that are now under forensic examination. Parallel proceedings over the property have also been pursued before an arbitral tribunal, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court.
The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that no incriminating material existed apart from the complainant’s statements and those of interested witnesses. He submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, as he had already joined the investigation several times.
The prosecution and complainant opposed anticipatory bail, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary due to pending forensic reports, missing financial records, and the involvement of absconding individuals.
Special Judge (NDPS) Atul Ahlawat observed that, despite the complexity created by voluminous pleadings, the matter essentially concerned a property dispute. The Court noted that the applicant had appeared before the investigating agency on seven separate occasions.
The Court, therefore, allowed the anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall furnish a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount.
2. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer whenever required.
3. The applicant shall provide his current address to the investigating officer and inform promptly in case of any change.
4. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.
5. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Appearances
Applicant- Sh. Arjun Sayal (through VC) and Sh. Rohit Kumar.
State- Dr. Satjsh Shukla, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Complainant- Sh. Vipul Lamha, and Sh. Akash Khurana (through VC).
