SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1322

High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Devinder Pal Singh
Versus
State & Another
Crl.M.C. 2430 of 2013
Decided on : 09-10-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mohit Mathur, Ms. Daman Kohli, Sahil Bhattacharya, Advocates along with in person.
For the Respondents:Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP, M.L. Meena, Inspector with DIG, R2, A. Mohanty, Advocate.

The importance of considering the accused's compliance with bail conditions and relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement in deciding on anticipatory bail applications.

Headnote:

Forgery - Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Section 482 - 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC - 160 Cr.P.C - [Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 1021, Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2012) 12 SCC 180, Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ((2013) 9 SCC 235] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439(2) and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. It highlighted the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving forgery and the need to consider the accused's compliance with bail conditions. The court emphasized that relevant materials indicating the accused's prima facie involvement were not considered while granting bail, leading to the decision to set aside the bail order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused, who was alleged to have forged and fabricated documents in a property transaction. The petitioner contended that the accused had not cooperated in the investigation and had forged documents to cheat the complainant. The court analyzed the accused's non-compliance with the bail conditions and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the forged documents and ascertain the modus operandi.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order, including furnishing the surety bond and joining the investigation. It also noted that the accused's reply to the questionnaire was a legal drafting and not a factual response. The court further observed that the accused's non-compliance with the bail conditions and the failure to consider relevant materials indicating his prima facie involvement led to the decision to set aside the bail order.

Issues: Non-compliance with bail conditions, necessity of custodial interrogation, and consideration of relevant materials indicating the accused's involvement.

Ratio Decidendi: The accused's failure to comply with the bail conditions and the non-consideration of relevant materials indicating his prima facie involvement led to the decision to set aside the bail order.

Final Decision: The petition seeking to quash the order granting anticipatory bail was allowed, and the bail order dated 22.05.2013 was set aside.

Judgment :

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. This is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.05.2013 whereby respondent no.2 was granted anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that accused/respondent no.2 sold a plot bearing No.J-262, New Alipore, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs and further took another Rs. 33 lakhs on the pretext of helping the complainant to obtain possession of the plot. When the possession was not delivered, then on inquiry the complainant came to know that he has been cheated by the accused as the papers turned out to be forged and fabricated, as such, a complaint was made to the police on 15.12.2009. However, no action was taken on the complaint and a report was submitted that no cognizable case was made out. Thereupon a complaint was made by the complainant before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide order dated 30.08.2012, the SHO, P.S. Defence Colony was directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to register FIR and investigate into the offences alleged by the complainant. Pursuant thereof FIR No.93/2012 was registered u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Despite registration of the case, the true status was not brought forth by the Investigating Officer. This led to change of investigation which was transferred to District Investigation Unit, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the respondent moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court on 14.05.2013 which was withdrawn on 20.05.2013. Thereafter an application was moved before the District Courts. Vide order dated 22.05.2013, the application was allowed and the respondent no.2 accused was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. One lakh with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned. He was further directed to submit his passport and not to leave the country without the permission of the Court. He was also directed to join investigation whenever required by the Investigating Officer.


3. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order on the ground that the learned Judge ignored the fact that the Investigating Officer along with the APP had opposed the bail and agitated before the Court that accused is not co-operating in the investigation. Various important factors were ignored while granting bail. The respondent had gone to the extent of forging and fabricating documents pertaining to Government authorities. He has forged the title deeds as well as demand notices purportedly issued by the Kolkatta Municipal Corporation to induce the complainant to believe in the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee number was also forged as it belonged to some Mukesh Jain. A false case was registered by the respondent accused before the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore upon nonexisting facts only in pursuance of his ulterior design to cheat the complainant. After obtaining an ex parte injunction against the opposite party, the suit was dismissed in default without service to the opposite party. Custodial interrogation of the accused is essential to recover the original forged and fabricated documents; to know modus operandi as to how he prepared and forged the fabricated documents; to know the persons from Kolkata Municipal Corporation and other persons who have aided and participated in colluding with respondent no.2 in the commission of the offences. Respondent no.2 is a master mind which is evident from the fact that the complainant has been cheated in a planned way. He first won over the trust of the complainant and then after forging various documents cheated the complainant, as such it was prayed that the order dated 22.05.2013 be set aside.

4. Respondent no.1/State has filed the status report. It was submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Ju



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top