Anticipatory bail is denied due to serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud, necessitating the potential for custodial interrogation.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The present bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [hereinafter “CrPC”), has been moved by the petitioner, Chhote Lal, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 391/2023, registered under Section s 420 , 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , at Police Station Dayalpur, Delhi.

2. The FIR was registered on 27.05.2023 pursuant to a written complaint lodged by one Mohd. Hamid, who alleged that he had been induced into purchasing a property bearing no. D-7/63, Dayalpur, Delhi, admeasuring 200 square yards, [hereinafter “subject property”], on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It was stated that the sale consideration agreed upon was Rs. 72 Lakhs , of which various instalments were paid in cash and otherwise, including Rs. 2 Lakhs as token money on 27.10.2022 and further payments on 28.10.2022, 15.11.2022, 27.04.2023, 28.04.2023, 30.04.2023, and 05.05.2023, totalling the alleged consideration amount.

3. As per the FIR, the complainant claimed that the sale was facilitated by co-accused Pravesh Kumar (son of the present petitioner), who represented himself as the owner of the subject property. Several individuals, including the present petitioner Chhote Lal, were stated to have been present during the transaction and allegedly participated in the preparation and execution of forged documents, including registered agreements and relinquishment deeds. The complainant claimed that the documents relied upon by the co- accused, including alleged relinquishment deeds dated 16.02.2021 and 12.09.2022, were fraudulent and had been executed in collusion with the present petitioner and other named individuals.

4. During the investigation, it emerged that one Ratan Lal, the brother of the present petitioner, had made a PCR call on 09.05.2023 alleging unauthorised entry into the subject property by some unknown individuals. Ratan Lal, who was examined by the Investigating Officer, [hereinafter “IO”], stated that he and the petitioner had jointly purchased the property in 1981 and that he had subsequently acquired the petitioner’s share of 25 square yards in 2021. He further stated that he had vacated and locked the premises in 2006 upon shifting to Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, and was unaware of the alleged transactions undertaken by Pravesh Kumar and others.

5. The investigation further revealed that various accused persons, including the petitioner, were allegedly involved in a conspiracy to create forged documents with respect to the subject property and to induce the complainant into parting with substantial sums of money. The IO recorded in his reply that the petitioner was seen in a video footage counting money, had allegedly executed two distinct relinquishment deeds pertaining to different area of the same property, and had also taken a loan from IIFL, Moti Nagar Branch on the said property even after its purported sale.

6. Furthermore, the investigation uncovered that Pravesh Kumar had secured a loan of Rs. 3.6 lakhs from one Sunita Rai in 2021 by mortgaging documents pertaining to the 75 square yard portion of the property. A written agreement was executed between Sunita Rai and the petitioner, signed by the Pravesh Kumar as a witness. Despite several payments made over time, Sunita Rai confirmed that approximately Rs. 3 lakhs remained outstanding. She produced the original agreement and title documents in support of her claim.

7. Based on these findings, the investigating agency has asserted that the petitioner is not only complicit in the creation of forged documents but also a co-conspirator in the broader scheme of cheating the complainant out of a sum of Rs. 72 Lakhs, by falsely representing the ownership and title of the subject property.

8. It is also on record that the co-accused Pravesh