Delhi’s Rohini Court has recently rejected a bail plea from Jaiveer, also known as Jassu, who is accused of cheating a complainant out of ₹62 lakh under the guise of selling 16 acres of agricultural land.
The court dismissed the bail request on October 29, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the accused’s previous attempts to evade arrest.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sushil Kumar noted that the Delhi Police’s response and the accused’s status as a fugitive contributed to the decision.
In his order, the judge stated, “Keeping in view the above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the seriousness of the offenses alleged against the applicant/accused Jaiveer alias Jassu, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage.”
The court highlighted that no recovery of the allegedly embezzled funds had been made thus far. Jaiveer was declared an absconder on April 6, 2024, for evading arrest. The FIR against him was filed at Prashant Vihar Police Station in 2022 under sections 420, 406, 34, and 174A of the Indian Penal Code, which detail the allegations of cheating related to the land sale.
According to the investigation, Jaiveer had received a token advance from another individual, Ajmer, regarding the same property but failed to disclose this to the complainant. During the hearing, it was brought to light that Jaiveer had attempted to sell the land to nearby residents through a registry, but this was canceled due to a judicial stay on the property.
The investigation officer’s report also indicated that Jaiveer is involved in another case at the Pillukheda Police Station in Jind, Haryana. In that instance, he allegedly entered into an agreement to sell land to a person who later committed suicide following the deception.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) strongly opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the charges. He argued that allowing bail would undermine the seriousness of the allegations against Jaiveer.
In contrast, Jaiveer’s counsel contended that he had been in judicial custody since July 17, 2024, and maintained that he was falsely implicated in the case. The defense argued that the complainant’s allegations stemmed from a land sale agreement dated August 23, 2021, where a token amount of ₹2 lakh was paid.
The counsel asserted that Jaiveer had informed the complainant that he did not possess exclusive ownership of the entire 16 acres, owning only 71 kanals of the total 109 kanals of land in question, and had communicated ongoing disputes with his brothers concerning the remaining portion.
Despite the defense’s claims, the court upheld the seriousness of the accusations and the potential risks associated with granting bail to the accused, emphasizing the need for continued scrutiny of the case.
