The main legal point established is that the seriousness of the allegations and the complexity of the transaction can warrant custodial interrogation and rejection of anticipatory bail.

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 Gabbar Singh, who is alleged to be his driver. It has been contended by the learned counsel that this is essentially a civil dispute between the parties which is pending since 2006 which is sought to be given a criminal colour only with a view to extract money from the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan 2010 (1) SCC 684 and Manoj Rana Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (4) JCC 2448 in support of his submission.

5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He has also been assisted by a private counsel representing one of the complainants against the petitioner. It has been contended by the learned APP that the case is at the crucial stage of investigation and the nature of transaction which has been entered into by Gabbar Singh at the instance of the petitioner is so complex that the real facts could not be unearthered unless and until custodial interrogation of the petitioner is carried out. It has been further stated that the petitioner is the main kingpin of the entire transaction. Firstly, he had asked his driver Gabbar Singh to represent as Rajesh Sharma and approach the complainant. He took an amount of Rs.12 lacs by agreeing to sell a land measuring 7 bighas and 11 biswas in Village Rajokari, Vasant Kunj, for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.17 crores and later sold the same land by different sets of documents through his driver to one Kishan Lal. It is the case of the prosecution that the land did not belong to the petitioner or Gabbar Singh at all. The land was sold by the duo by impersonating Rajesh Sharma. The actual owner has filed a civil suit against various persons who are claiming the ownership of the said property on the basis of the transactions emanating from the petitioner and his driver.

6. On the basis of these serious allegations of cheating, forging documents and using the forged documents as genuine, the learned APP has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP and gone through the record.

8. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present FIR no. 282/2006, u/S 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Jagdish Maan (since deceased) that he came in contact with the present petitioner in the month of November, 2005 and he introduced one Rajesh Sharma to him who projected himself to be the owner of a land measuring 7 bighas and 11 biswas in Village Rajokari, Vasant Kunj. It has been alleged that Gabbar Singh, driver of the present petitioner who has already been enlarged on regular bail had represented hi