Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul
Nadeem Khan – Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding property dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments for anticipatory bail claim (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. state's opposition to anticipatory bail (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and role (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. final ruling on anticipatory bail application (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Digpaul, J.
1. The present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [hereinafter “CrPC”], has been filed by the petitioner, Nadeem Khan, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 546/2023, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, District South- East, Delhi, under Sections 420 /467/468/471/120-B/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, [hereinafter “IPC”]
Factual Matrix
2. The genesis of the dispute traces back to a transaction of land situated in Village Jogabai, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi, falling in Khasra No. 260/1, measuring 400 square yards, [hereinafter “subject property”]. The petitioner asserts that he had purchased this parcel on 06.02.2002 from its erstwhile owners, namely Ganpat (son of Rishal) and Savitri (wife of Beg Raj), through a set
Anticipatory bail denial upheld due to forged documents and central role in conspiracy, necessitating custodial interrogation for effective investigation.
Anticipatory bail is denied due to serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud, necessitating the potential for custodial interrogation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for providing evidence of transactions and the seriousness of allegations in property ownership disputes and forgery cases.
The court affirmed the serious nature of fraud and forgery allegations as grounds for denying bail, emphasizing the petitioner's significant role in a criminal conspiracy.
The court held that mere allegations under serious IPC sections do not negate the applicability of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. when lesser penalties are involved, allowing anticipatory bail.
The Court asserts that anticipatory bail must be granted unless compelling reasons exist, particularly in property disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
