The power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail is extraordinary and not to be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist, ensuring the accused is not likely to misuse their liberty.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Bail application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in response to FIR No. 82/2021 for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC - There was no documentation to substantiate the claim of ownership by the petitioner over the property in question. (Paras 1-4, 6-13)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court emphasized that the power under Section 438 is extraordinary and should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there are reasonable grounds that the individual may be falsely implicated. The court noted the significance of cooperation with the investigation and the necessity of arrest to further the investigation process. (Paras 11-12)

Facts of the case:
The complainants alleged that the petitioner and his family members were unlawfully occupying the property in question based on forged documents, leading to the registration of the FIR. The petitioner failed to provide ownership documents to support his claim.

Findings of Court:
The court found no justifiable grounds for granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice and the gravity of the forgery allegations.

Issues: The court considered the lack of documentation in favor of the petitioner and his family's continuous possession of the property, alongside the validity of the GPA that he presented.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of credible documents to establish ownership and the petitioner’s evasion of investigation were grounds for denying anticipatory bail in this case.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the bail request. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties regarding property ownership. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis on evidence of possession and ownership. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's reasoning on bail application denial. (Para 12 , 13)
5. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No. 82/2021 dated 12.03.2021 registered at Police Station Model Town for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present petition are as under:

a) Complaint was given by one Parv Mittal S/o Prem Mittal R/o 73-B Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and one Mool Chand Mittal S/o Late Ram Kishan Dass R/o H.No. 54-A, Kamla Nagar, Malka Ganj, Delhi, stating that they are the owners of property bearing No. R-5/2, Model Town, Delhi admeasuring 31 Sq. Yards and property bearing No. R-5/3, admeasuring 75 Sq. Yards situated at Rishab Nagari, Model Town, Delhi-110009. It is stated that they purchased the abovementioned properties on 07.12.2019 from one Kamal Kishore Jain R/o R-5/1, Model Town, Mohan Park, Delhi, 110009. It is stated that the said Kamal Kishore Jain gave the possession of property bearing No. R-5/2, Model Town, Delhi on 17.12.2019 but he could not give the possession of property bearing No. R-5/3, Model Town, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question'), stating that 5-6 persons are staying in the said property and they will vacate the premises by 13.04.2020.

b) It is stated that in March 2020, when Kamal Kishor Jain asked the occupants of the property in question to vacate it, they threatened him with dire consequences. It is stated that the occupants told Kamal Kishor Jain that they are the owners of the said property and they have valid documents of the same. It is stated that the occupants of the property in question also threatened the complainants herein. The complainants, thereafter, approached the Police and gave a complaint stating that Sunil (the petitioner herein) and his family members (all occupants of property bearing No. R-5/3, Model Town, Delhi) are trying to grab the property on the basis of forged documents. On the basis of this complaint FIR No. 82/2021 was registered at Police Station Model Town for offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC.

c) The petitioner approached the Trial Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail being, Bail Application No.1037/2021. The learned ASJ directed the petitioner to place on record the documents of ownership of the property in question. When the petitioner was not able to produce any document of ownership, the learned ASJ vide order dated 05.04.2021 dismissed the anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

d) The petitioner once again approached the Trial Court by filing another application, being Bail Application No.1183/2021, stating that the father of the petitioner had purchased the property in question from one Mrs. Chander Kala Jain in the year 1971, but the documents of ownership were misplaced in the floods. The learned ASJ dismissed the said application vide order dated 09.04.2021.

e) The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court by filing the instant petition.

3. Mr. Sudhir Mendiratta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the father of the petitioner purchased the property bearing No. R-5/3, Model Town, Delhi from one Chandra Kala Jain. He states that the family of the petitioner is in possession of the property from the past 25 years. He states that electricity connection, Aadhaar Cards, ration cards and Voter ID cards of the family members of the petitioner are issued on the same address i.e. R-5/3, Model Town, Delhi which shows that the aforementioned property was in continuous possession of the petitioner's family. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document