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

2012 Supreme(Del) 2550

V.K.SHALI
Ajit Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Ad#31;vocate.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP.

JUDGMENT :

V.K. Shali, J.:— (Oral)

1. This is the third application for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He has contended that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the sale agreement on the basis of which the petitioner is alleged to have cheated the complainant, Jagdish Maan (deceased) is a forged and fabricated document.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and he was interrogated by the police. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the police has not recorded the statement of the notary public or any of the witnesses although, the charge sheet against the co-accused has been filed. It has been contended by him that the petitioner is not in any way connected with the chain of documents on the basis of which transaction has been taken place nor did he authorize or ask anyone to impersonate as Rajesh Sharma to sell the property. The petitioner is stated to be 60 years of age and the only evidence which is alleged to have been gathered against him, is the purported disclosure statement made by one


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top