Delhi High Court - Orders
Soniya vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 January, 2022
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 149/2022
SONIYA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajan Bajaj, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP with
SI Manish Tyagi, PS- Jamia Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 17.01.2022 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING CRL.M.A. 915/2022 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 149/20221. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C is for grant of bail in the event of arrest to the petitioner in FIR No.495/2021 dated 30.10.2021 registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar for offences under Sections 420/406/465/467/468/471/34 IPC.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under:
a) A complaint was given by one Dilshad Ahmed S/o Rahmat Illahi R/o D0268, 1st Floor, Tikona Park, Jamia Nagar, Delhi against the petitioner herein and her husband stating that he is the owner of the property bearing No. M-4A, Lane No.2, Sailing Club Road, Near Khalilullah Masjid, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 1 Signed Digitally of 6 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:20.01.2022 19:07 question'). It is stated that the 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the building are owned by the builder and the upper ground floor, the 3rd & the 4th floor are owned by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant rented the upper ground floor of the property to the husband of the petitioner herein for Rs. 40,000/-
per month and executed a rent agreement for the same, being Agreement No. IN-DL42413567092993P dated 14.10.2017. It is stated that the tenants used to pay rent at irregular intervals and they stopped paying rent from the month of May, 2021. It is stated that in the month of August, 2021, the complainant discovered that the petitioner herein and her husband have posted an advertisement on OLX for selling the upper ground floor of the property in question. It is further stated that the complainant received a notice from Civil Court, Saket Courts, Delhi regarding a civil suit, being civil Suit No. CS SCJ/1038/2021, filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant claiming that she had purchased the Upper Ground Floor of the property in question vide Power of Attorney dated 19.04.2021 executed by the complainant herein in favour of the petitioner herein. On this Complaint, FIR No.495/2021 dated 30.10.2021 was registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar for offences under Sections 420/406/465/467/468/471/34 IPC.
b) Apprehending arrest the petitioner and her husband approached the Trial Court by filing applications for grant of bail in the event of arrest.
c) The Status Report was called for. The Status Report dated
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 2 Signed
Digitally of 6
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:20.01.2022
19:07
08.12.2021 was filed by the Investigating Officer. In the Status Report it is mentioned that during investigation it was found that the GPA of the property in question was checked and it was found that it was notarized by one Rais Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (Registration No. 5460/08). The status report reveals that during investigation, the said Rais Ahmad told Police that the GPA was not notarized by him and the signature is also not genuine. The status report further reveals that the witnesses on the GPA are the mother of the petitioner and the driver of her mother and both witnesses were unavailable to give statement. It is stated that the complainant has sent the Rent Agreement, the GPA Agreement and specimen signatures to private handwriting expert and it was found by the expert that the signature of the complainant in the GPA do not match with the signature in the rent agreement.
d) The learned Additional Sessions Judge -05, South East District, Saket Courts, vide order dated 08.12.2021 directed the Police to verify the e-Stamp papers dated 19.04.2021 used in execution of GPA, sale agreement etc., in connection with the transfer of ownership of property in question and adjourned the matter to 11.01.2022.
e) A reply was filed by the Police stating that during investigation it was found that the e-Stamp was issued by a vendor, one Javed Akhtar having office at Amar Colony, Delhi. It is stated that the vendor told the Police that the said e-Stamp was sold by him and the payment was done in Cash but since he does not Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 3 Signed Digitally of 6 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:20.01.2022 19:07 maintain a record of the persons who came to his shop and purchase the e-Stamps, he does not know the name of person who purchased the said e-Stamp. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.01.2022 rejected the bail application of the petitioner herein on the ground that as per the statement of Notary, the GPA has been forged by the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to ascertain the authorship of the forged documents and for effective investigation.
f) The petitioner has thereafter filed the instant petition seeking bail in the event of arrest.
3. Mr. Rajan Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is being falsely implicated by the complainant. He states that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature and the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction restraining the complainant from evicting the petitioner which is pending before the Civil Court. He states that the petitioner is ready to join investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner and, therefore, anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. He states that the stamp vendor has stated that he does not remember who purchased the stamp paper and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be find fault with.
4. Per contra, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, opposes the bail application of the petitioner by contending that the allegations against the petitioner are serious. She further states that the petitioner has forged documents and the GPA has also been forged by her and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 4 Signed Digitally of 6 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:20.01.2022 19:07 recovery of forged documents and to ascertain the authorship of documents.
5. Heard Mr. Rajan Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, and perused the material on record.
6. Material on record discloses that the investigation has revealed that the Notary - Advocate Rais Ahmad Siddiqui, has stated that the GPA was not notarized by him and the signatures are not genuine. Investigation has also revealed that the witnesses to the GPA i.e. the mother of the petitioner and the driver of the mother of the petitioner, are not available to give their statements. The stamp vendor has also stated that he does not remember as to whom the stamp papers were sold.
7. The petitioner is alleged of committing a very serious offence punishable under Sections 420/406/465/467/468/471/34 IPC and if convicted, the petitioner can be incarcerated for life. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would, be required to unearth the conspiracy and to ascertain the veracity of the GPA and to ascertain as to whether the agreement to sell is genuine or not.
8. It is well settled that while considering an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. the court has to consider the gravity of the offence, nature of evidence on record against the accused, likelihood of the accused absconding or evading the process of law and the likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence. Custody may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 5 Signed Digitally of 6 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:20.01.2022 19:07 application under Section 438 of the Code. The Court has to balance between the personal liberty of the person and has also to ensure that investigation is not hampered.
9. The petitioner has chosen not to file any suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell, GPA, etc., which according to the petitioner was instituted way back in the year 2016. On the contrary, the petitioner chose to file a suit for injunction restraining the complainant from evicting the petitioner without following due process of law.
10. The petitioner has chosen not to join investigation even during the pendency of the matter before the Trial Court. Custody of the petitioner would be required to ascertain as to whether the GPA which is filed along with the Suit is a forged document or not.
11. In view of the above this Court feels that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage, would hamper the investigation and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
JANUARY 17, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 149/2022 Page 6 Signed
Digitally of 6
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:20.01.2022
19:07