Delhi High Court - Orders
Baldev Singh Pawar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 3 December, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 3992/2021
BALDEV SINGH PAWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhijat, Mr.Yashapal Singh,
Mr.Dhananjay Sehrawat, Ms.Sonia
Rana & Mr.Shashwat Jindal,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for State
wtih SI Satender Singh, Police Station
Burari.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 03.12.2021 The status report dated 01.12.2021 has been submitted by the State. The applicant, vide the present application has sought the grant of bail in relation to FIR No.737/2021, PS Burari under Sections 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has been incarcerated since 19.11.2021, that the other co-accused in the matter are at large, that despite the anticipatory bail of the co-accused Kamla Mehra having been dismissed previously, she has till date not been arrested, that the applicant is not the executant of any document nor has he signed on the same and that the allegations levelled against the applicant are only on the basis of alleged statements made by the co-accused persons who have since not been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28 arrested.
The applicant submits that he had also been taken into police custody after registration of the FIR and no useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration submitting to the effect that he is innocent and that even after the applicant was taken into custody, there was no recovery of any kind whatsoever effected, which aspect is not refuted by the Investigating Officer in reply to a specific Court query. The applicant further submits that he was only a dealer in the entire transaction complained of by the complainant. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the offences involved in the instant case are not punishable beyond seven years and thus, he be released on bail placing reliance on a catena of verdicts to the effect:-
"(i) Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (AIR 2012 SC 830, (2012) 1 SCC
49)
(ii) Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., (Criminal Appeal No.153/2020)
(iii) Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
(iv) Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2000 (2) JCC Delhi 302
(v) Guru Bipin Singh Vs. Sh.Chongtham Manihar & Anr. decided on 11.10.1996
(vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay Sharma (1977 SCC (4) 308)
(vii) Ranjitsing Brahmjitsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No.523/2005."
Through the status report submitted on behalf of the State and the submissions made on behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the complainant Sh.Krishna had stated that he had purchased a plot measuring 200 Square Yards out of Khasra No. 15/24, D Block, Harit Vihar, Burari Delhi for the considerable amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- (Thirty one Lakh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28 Rupees) from a property dealer namely Baldev Singh Pawar i.e. the petitioner on 11.07.2018 and despite the payment of a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- , the payment showed on the receipt of the GPA was Rs. 15 Lakh, the receipt in relation thereto has been produced by the Investigating Officer which receipt is executed by one Ms.Kamla Mehra, the co-accused in the matter, the signatories thereon are shown to be Sh.Krishna and one Bitan D/o Sh.Ramdeen and wife of the complainant with there being nothing to show the petitioner being the signatory thereto. The copy of the said receipt is directed to be placed on record by the State.
It has been submitted through the status report that when the complainant had gone to construct a house there, he had been stopped by the petitioner by saying that the said plot did not belong to him and he would be given another plot or the entire amount would be refunded with interest of 2% per month and despite requests made by the complainant, neither was his money returned nor was the possession of the plot given and after some time, the petitioner started threatening the complainant with dire consequences pursuant to which the petitioner has also given a cheque of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant on persistent requests of the complainant.
Inter alia it is submitted by the State that on physical verification of the property, it was found that 100 yards was found to be in possession of one Ankush and as per the GPA, the said 100 yards were purchased by Ankush from Sh.Budh Singh Pawar, the father of the petitioner on 22.01.2019, As per the status report, the co-accused Kamla Mehra examined on 07.08.2021 stated that she had executed the GPA on the instructions of petitioner. The State also submits that the complainant had been induced by the petitioner to invest RS.31 Lakhs in the property and three executant of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28 GPA Chain i.e. Kamla Mehra, Rattan Singh and Harshnath had disclosed that the GPA chain of property in question was executed on the instructions of petitioner.
As per the status report dated 01.12.2021 submitted by the State, the GPA Chain has been put forth by the State to the effect:-
S. Date of GPA Executants Statements of Verification No. Executants Report of Notary Public
1. 11.7.18 Kamla Mehra in Accused Kamla Mehra Notary Public favour of stated in her statement Mithlesh Agarwala Complainant Shri (before registering FIR) refused to have Krishna that she execute GPA attested GPA and on the instructions of other documents petitioner.
2. 25.5.14 Rattan Singh in Accused Rattan Singh Notary Public favour of Kamla stated in during Sunder Lal refused Mehra interrogation that he to have attested execute GPA on the GPA and other Instructions of documents Petitioner. He received cheque No. 213223 from petitioner.
3. 23.05.14 Harshnath in Accused Harshnath Notary Public favour of Rattan during in interrogation Sunder Lal refused Singh stated that he execute to have attested GPA on the instructions GPA and other of Petitioner documents
4. 19.05.14 Surjeet Arora in Surjeet Arora is not Notary Public favour of traceable yet. O.P.Chaudhary Harshnath refused to have attested GPA and other documents
5. 28.10.08 Bhavel Rajput in Bhavel Rajput could Details of Notary favour of Surejeet not be traced at his Public not received Arora address. yet. Surjeet Arora is also not found.
6. 24.10.08 Sh.Hari Krishan Hari Kishan stated that Notary Public could in favour of he execute GPA in not be traced.
Bhavel Rajput favour of Bhavel Further efforts are Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28 Rajput. continuing to trace him.
, as per which the persons named Kamla Mehra, Rattan Singh and Harshnath who are the co-accused in the matter state that they had executed the GPA on the instructions of the petitioner. The notary publics who are stated to have attested the GPA and other documents i.e. Mithilesh Aggarwala, Sunder Lal have stated that they have not attested the GPA and other documents. One of the persons in the chain named Bhavel Rajput had not been traced out nor was the notary public Surjit Arora traced out. The notary public who attested the document in relation to Hari Kishan having executed the GPA in favour of Bhavel Rajput was also not found and it has thus, been submitted by the State that the GPA's as attested in the chart hereinabove at serial nos. 1 to 4 were found to be forged and executants of GPA mentioned in the GPA chain that the GPAs were executed on the instructions of the petitioner.
It has also further been submitted on behalf of the State that the co- accused Rattan Singh provided an original cheque No.213223 dated 26.05.2014 which is stated to be for a sum of Rs.9 Lakhs issued by the petitioner in connection with the deal of the property in question but that cheque was never presented with the bank as it was given to him as a security. The specimen signatures and hand writing of the petitioner and other accused persons are stated to have been obtained.
On a consideration of the submissions that have been made on behalf of either side, taking into account the averments made in the complaint and also the factum that the applicant is not indicated to be a signatory to any of the documents collected by the Investigating Agency, though, which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28 documents are stated to have been executed by the persons who have allegedly executed them at the behest of the petitioner, and that the applicant has also already been in police custody with no other recovery effected at his behest, subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the form of an FDR in the Trial Court within a period of three weeks, which on deposit is directed to be converted into an auto renewal mode, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail on filing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with directions to the applicant to the effect that:-
he shall not leave the country; he shall join the investigation of the case as and when required by the Investigating Agency;
he shall keep his mobile phone on at all times; he shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that his location is available to the Investigating Officer of the case; he shall not intimidate the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J DECEMBER 3, 2021 'Neha Chopra' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.12.2021 13:28