Crl.M.C.2430.2013 Page 1 of 14

$

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 9^th October, 2013

+

CRL.M.C.2430/2013

DEVINDER PAL SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mohit Mathur, Ms. Daman Kohli

and Mr. Sahil Bhattacharya, Advs.

along with petitioner in person.

versus

STATE & ANR.

..... Respondent

Through

Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State

with Inspector M.L.Meena, DIG/South

Distt., P.S. Defence Colony.

Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

J U D G M E N T

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1.

This is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner for quashing the order

dated 22.05.2013 whereby respondent no.2 was granted anticipatory bail. It

is the case of the petitioner that accused/respondent no.2 sold a plot bearing

No.J-262, New Alipore, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs and

further took another Rs. 33 lakhs on the pretext of helping the complainant to

obtain possession of the plot. When the possession was not delivered, then on

inquiry the complainant came to know that he has been cheated by the

accused as the papers turned out to be forged and fabricated, as such, a

2013:DHC:5248

Crl.M.C.2430.2013 Page 2 of 14

complaint was made to the police on 15.12.2009. However, no action was

taken on the complaint and a report was submitted that no cognizable case

was made out. Thereupon a complaint was made by the complainant before

learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide order dated 30.08.2012, the SHO, P.S.

Defence Colony was directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to

register FIR and investigate into the offences alleged by the complainant.

Pursuant thereof FIR No.93/2012 was registered u/s 420/467/468/471/120-B

IPC. Despite registration of the case, the true status was not brought forth by

the Investigating Officer. This led to change of investigation which was

transferred to District Investigation Unit, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

2.

Apprehending his arrest, the respondent moved an application seeking

anticipatory bail before the High Court on 14.05.2013 which was withdrawn

on 20.05.2013. Thereafter an application was moved before the District

Courts. Vide order dated 22.05.2013, the application was allowed and the

respondent no.2 accused was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs. One lakh with one surety in the like amount

to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned. He was further directed to

submit his passport and not to leave the country without the permission of the

Court. He was also directed to join investigation whenever required by the

Investigating Officer.

3.

Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed seeking

setting aside of the order on the ground that the learned Judge ignored the

2013:DHC:5248

Crl.M.C.2430.2013 Page 3 of 14

fact that the Investigating Officer along with the APP had opposed the bail

and agitated before the Court that accused is not co-operating in the

investigation. Various important factors were ignored while granting bail. The

respondent had gone to the extent of forging and fabricating documents

pertaining to Government authorities. He has forged the title deeds as well as

demand notices purportedly issued by the Kolkatta Municipal Corporation to

induce the complainant to believe in the genuineness of the transaction. The

assessee number was also forged as it belonged to some Mukesh Jain. A fals