* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application No. 488/2010
% Date of Decision: 12th MAY,2010
# JANAKI .....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a criminal case under Section 420 IPC, got registered against her by the complainant vide FIR No. 56/10 at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.
2. Arguments on this bail application have been heard.
3. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State and the same has also been perused by this Court.
4. The petitioner was working as a maid servant in the house of the complainant's father, who had retired as a Class-I Gazetted Officer 15 years ago. The complainant's father is an old person of more than 76 years of age. The Status Report reveals that the petitioner has abused and misused her position of maid servant and is alleged to have cheated the complainant and his father to the tune of about Rs. 1 crore. Bail Application No. 488/2010 Page 1 of 3 She got his property being House No. 1869, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110 009, transferred in her name by fabricating the Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney of the said property in her name by getting the thumb impression of complainant's father on the said documents in fraudulent manner. The petitioner is shown to have paid Rs.19,90,000/- as sale consideration to the complainant's father for purchasing his property. Not only she got his aforementioned property transferred in her name, she is alleged to have also withdrawn a huge amount of Rs. 75 lakhs from different bank accounts of the complainant's father and got it deposited in bank in her name and in the name of her children. She is further alleged to have operated the bank locker of the complainant's father fraudulently and is alleged to have removed the entire jewellery and other valuables lying in his locker. The complainant's father is stated to be suffering from dementia and advance stage of 'Parkinson'. He is more than 76 years of age.
5. Counsel for the petitioner was asked if the petitioner was working as a maid servant in the house of the complainant's father, where from she got the huge amount to the tune of about Rs. 1 crore for purchasing his property and for depositing a huge amount in her bank account and in the accounts of her children in a short span of time. However, counsel for the petitioner had no answer to this query but to state that this money was paid to her by the complainant's father only. It is difficult to believe that the complainant or his father would pay such a huge amount of Rs. 1 crore to their maid servant and would transfer their movable and immovable properties in her name. The accusations against the petitioner are of very serious nature which do not entitle her for pre-arrest bail. She is accused of having cheated her master and has thereby belied the trust reposed in her. This Court is conscious of the Bail Application No. 488/2010 Page 2 of 3 fact that the petitioner is a female but in the opinion of this Court, this alone is not sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail to her when accusations of cheating against her are of very serious nature.
6. Her bail application is strongly opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State stating that the custodian interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to dig out the crime brought to book by the complainant through FIR in question. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the custodian interrogation of the petitioner is also required to ascertain as to who are the other conspirators with the petitioner in cheating the complainant and his father in the manner stated above.
7. Taking stock of all the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Her bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
MAY 12, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'MA'
Bail Application No. 488/2010 Page 3 of 3