Delhi High Court - Orders
Rajesh Arora @ Rajesh Dhingra vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 February, 2023
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 444/2023
RAJESH ARORA @ RAJESH DHINGRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Prakash Priyadarshi, Mr. Himanshu, Advs.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP
Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mr. Manav Bhalla,, Advs.
SI Anupam, PS Amar Colony
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 10.02.2023 CRL.M.A. 3563/2023-EX.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 444/20231. This is an application filed seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR No. 590/2022 dated 17.11.2022 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 420/406/467/506/34 IPC.
2. It is stated by Mr. Uppal, learned senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not been named in the FIR. He states that he has only been named in the subsequent 161 Cr.PC statement of the complainant. Even assuming the 161 Cr.PC statement to be correct, the applicant was only an attesting witness to the alleged forged agreement to sell. There is no money trail or benefit accrued to the applicant.
3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the complainant has handed over two Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24 agreements to sell and purchase and states that the original agreement to sell and purchase was only a draft agreement to sell and purchase and was neither notarised nor signed by the second party i.e. Mr. Mukesh. He further states that in para 3 of the said agreement, the dated of 21.06.2016 has been changed to 21.06.2018 on the basis of which, the main accused, Mr. Mukesh along with the applicant has obtained a stay order. The learned counsel further states that the applicant has abetted and aided the main accused in forging the said document. He also states that the notary public in his 161 Cr.PC statement has also stated that he has never notarised the document.
The applicant is an attesting witness to the document.
4. Mr. Singh, learned APP states that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required for recovery of the notary stamp and the specimen signature and in disclosure statement, there is an allegation that the applicant has received a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs.
5. Prima facie, there are no allegations against the applicant in the FIR.
The applicant does not seem to have received any financial benefit from the alleged forgery.
6. The issues can be further adjudicated once the status report and reply of the complainant is placed on record. Let status report and reply by the complainant be filed within 2 weeks from today.
7. In the meanwhile, subject to the applicant joining investigation as and when directed by the I.O. concerned, the applicant shall not be arrested in the FIR No. 590/2022 dated 17.11.2022 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 420/406/467/506/34 IPC.
8. In case the applicant wishes, he can file a rejoinder within 1 week Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24 thereafter.
9. List on 17.03.2023.
10. The agreements to sell and purchase are taken on record.
JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 10, 2023 / (MS) Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24