The court ruled that bail, while generally granted as a norm, may be revoked if serious allegations of fraud and potential flight risk arise, reflecting substantive judicial scrutiny of bail orders.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Smt. Rachna seeking cancellation of Bail granted by Ld. ASJ vide Order dated 24.12.2020 in case FIR No.28/2019 under Section 420 /406/467/468/471/34 INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered at Police Station Jagatpuri.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2012 Smt. Rachna, the Petitioner along with Smt. Kanchan Kakkar, purchased the property measuring about 200 sq. yds. with construction rights from Raj Kumar, Respondent No.2 and his brother Bhushan Kumar, on payment of valuable consideration, after which they both became the joint owners. The Sale Deed was registered on 28.09.2012.

3. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent No.2 had assured that the property is free from all encumbrances, mortgage, lean etc. The physical possession of the property was handed over on 28.09.2012 to the Petitioner and the co-owner, after which they had put their own locks upon the property.

4. In the middle of December, 2018, the Petitioner along with her mother-in-law visited the property and was surprised to see that some persons have trespassed into the property and raised unauthorized constructions and were actually occupying the constructed property. On enquiry, they came to know that they all had purchased their respective portions from the Respondent No.2 and his brother and that the Sale Deeds have been duly executed in their favour, which were shown by them to the Complainant. She then made enquiry at the office of Sub-Registrar which confirmed execution of three Sale Deeds dated 22.09.2015, 26.04.2016 and 17.06.2015 in the name of different persons.

5. It was asserted that the new buyers were aware of the Complainant and Kanchan Kakkar being the owner of the property in question, despite which they have trespassed and unauthorizedly taken possession of the subject property. All the aforesaid persons were claimed to have acted in collusion to cheat the Complainant.

6. It was further claimed that the Respondent No.2 and his brother, had also taken loan from various Banks against the said property by preparing forged and fabricated title documents. It was alleged that Sub-Registrar- VIII was also involved in the forgeries and was aware that the property already stood transferred and is booked with the MCD.

7. The Complainant has further alleged that officials of MCD were also involved in the unauthorized construction which has been raised without Sanction plans etc.

8. The Complainant further claimed that in the last week of December, 2018, the alleged purchasers of the property had threatened to kill the complainant and her family members in case she again visited the property. The FIR No.28/2019 under Section 420 /406/467/468/471/34 IPC P.S. Jagatpuri was accordingly, registered.

9. During the investigations, the Petitioner had produced the original Sale Deed dated 29.09.2012. The Notices were served upon Respondent No.2 and his brother and also the subsequent purchasers. The Anticipatory Bail was granted to all the subsequent purchasers.

10. The investigations were joined by Bhushan Kumar on 16.04.2019 who informed that the Respondent No.2 Raj Kumar was in Judicial Custody in one rape case. Bhushan Kumar had been granted Bail by this Court. All the accused persons joined