Shri Mahendra Singh Adil And Anr. vs State
2005 Latest Caselaw 371 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the father and son who have been falsely implicated in this case and this case is entirely of a civil nature for which the complainant, if he is so aggrieved ought to pursue civil remedies. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners were the owners of the property bearing No.511D/5A, Govindpuri, Delhi. By the usual set of documents, such as General Power of Attorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, etc., the petitioners are said to have transacted to convey a portion of the basement of the said property to the complainant on 02.05.1996. Subsequently, on 09.12.1998, the petitioner No.2 by executing similar documents is said to have sold his share of ground floor in the aid property to the complainant. The value of both these transactions were Rs.3.2 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively. Thereafter, having so agreed to transfer the portions of the said property, the petitioners have again sold the entire property bearing No.511D/5A, Govindpuri, Delhi to some other person on 29.05.2004 Upon coming to know of this, the complainant filed the complaint and an FIR has been registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in point of fact, there was no agreement to sell or any sale transaction. According to him, there were two separate loan transactions and these documents were executed as co-lateral security in respect of the loans. According to him, when the first loan was repaid, the documents were returned and that is why, the complainant does not have the documents in respect of the first transaction.

2. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioners knew very well that they had already entered into sale transactions with the complainant on 02.05.1996 and 09.12.1998 and knowing this fully well they attempted to sell the same property again on 29.05.2004 to somebody else. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the State, the ingredients for the offences, inter alia, under Section 420 IPC are clearly made out. Another important circumstance which was pointed out by the learned counsel for the State was that a letter was supposed to have been written by the complainant. However, the name given at the bottom of the letter is 'Gopal Kishan' instead of 'Gopal Krishan' and the signature is also not of the complainant. The letter purports to vindicate the stand of the petitioners and it is an attempt to show that the petitioners are not involved in any offence. This letter is said to have been received by the petitioner from the complainant. The petitioner sent a copy of the same to the I.O. According to the complainant, no such letter was written by him and the signature is not his. The learned counsel for the State submits that on a comparison of the signature on this document and the one which is available on record on the GPA, the two are clearly different. He further submits that the one on the letter which is in question appears to be a clear forgery. According to the learned counsel for the State, under these circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

3. Taking a prima facie view of the matter, it does appear to me that the story of the loan transactions does not appear to be tenable. This is so because if the loans had been repaid, then both sets of documents ought to have been available with the petitioners and not with the complainant. Secondly, the petitioners knew very well that the said transactions had been entered into with the complainant, yet they went and sold the entire property to a third person on 29.05.2004 Apart from this, the conduct of the petitioners in sending the letter dated 11.11.1999 to the investigating officer clearly dis-entitles them to the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the application is rejected.