Vandana Grover vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 1272 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Bail Application No.1335/2008

%                       Date of Decision: 07.08.2008

Vandana Grover                                         .... Petitioner

                       Through Mr.Prashant      Mendiratta             and
                               Mr.Vaibhav Raina, Advocates

                                 Versus

State                                                  .... Respondent

                       Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State along
                               with SI Om Prakash, P.S. Rajender
                               Nagar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may be             YES
        allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
        the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the

Criminal Procedure Code in respect of FIR No.194 of 2006 under

Sections 419/420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station Rajender Nagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

complaint dated 18th May, 2006 filed by the complainant is false and

the FIR was registered after a considerable delay on 9th November,

2006. The husband of the petitioner was arrested on 26th November,

2007 and was released on bail on 2nd June, 2008 and thereafter the

petitioner is being threatened with the arrest.

It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has filed the

charge sheet without taking original documents from the complainant

and has declined to take various documents from the petitioner which

will show the innocence of the petitioner. The husband of the

complainant is stated to be a blackmailer and it is alleged that the

police is hand-in-glove with him. The husband of the complainant is

alleged to have threatened and harassed innocent property owners by

giving them loans at lucrative rates of interest and have usurped their

properties which are mortgaged by them. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has filed the copies of various FIRs by different persons

whose properties are alleged to have been grabbed by the husband of

the complainant in the area.

The accusation against the petitioner is that the property bearing

No.22/8, Lower Ground Floor, New Rajender Nagar, was sold by her on

4th September, 2002 by way of general power of attorney and other

related documents to Shri Birender Kumar on 4th September, 2002 who

allegedly sold the said property to the complainant. It is also alleged

that the complainant had let out the said property to the husband of

the petitioner, Shri Jagdish Grover. The petitioner is alleged to have

sold the aforesaid property also to Shri Amit Mangal on 13th April,

2006.

Regarding the alleged sale to Shri Biredner Kumar, it is

contended that a loan of Rs.5.00 lakh was taken from Shri Birender

Kumar which amount was repaid by the husband of the petitioner by

pay order 593727 dated 26.12.2002 for Rs.2.50 lakh drawn on Indian

Overseas Bank, Haldwani and another pay order of Rs.2.00 lakh which

was also given by the husband of the petitioner from his Bank Account

No.8583 with the Central Bank of India, Chunna Mandi, Paharganj.

The pay order for Rs.2.00 lakh was drawn in favor of the mother,

Smt.Shakuntala Rani, of Shri Birender Kumar. The details of other

amounts paid are also given by the petitioner.

The petitioner is stated to be a house wife with three minor

children aged 14, 10, and 9 years and children are stated to be

completely dependent on the petitioner emotionally and psychologically.

Petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the

original documents. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner had

joined the investigation on 21st June, 2008; 23rd June, 2008 and 4th

July, 2008. The original documents which are sought to be recovered

from the petitioner could not be in her possession as the original

documents were executed in favour of Pooja Vacher, Birendeer Kumar

and Amit Mangal. The allegation of the complainant is not that the

original documents were retained by the petitioner. In order to compare

the signatures of the petitioner with the signatures on the documents

which were executed, the signatures and the handwriting of the

petitioner can be obtained whenever she will be directed to appear

before the investigating officer.

Considering the totality of circumstances, the petitioner is

entitled for anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed. In case

of arrest, petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. The petitioner shall

take part in investigation as and when directed by the investigating

officer and shall also give her specimen signatures and writing, if so

required by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall not influence

any of the witnesses. The petition is disposed of with these directions.

Dasti.

August 07th , 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J.

'Dev'