Ramkaran And Others vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 2290 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           Bail Application No.1546/2008

%                                Date of Decision: 19.12.2008

Ramkaran and Others                                             .... Petitioners

                            Through Mr.R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate               with
                                    Mr.Ankur Aggarwal, Advocate

                                         Versus

State                                                           .... Respondent

                            Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State
                                    along with SI Satvinder Singh
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.

*

1. The petitioners, who allege to be bhoomidars/their descendents

and/or their family members were allotted 5 acres of agricultural land

in the year 1974 under 20-Point Program by the Government of India.

They seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.24/2006 registered under

Sections 415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 464, 466, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120B

and 31 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mehrauli filed pursuant to a

complaint by the complainant, Chandermukhi, who had purchased the

rights in a portion of the land from one of the transferees of the

petitioners in 1988.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued the

matter extensively going into trivial details of other purchasers of 1988

and subsequent purchasers contending that some of them are fake.

Many pleas and contentions of the learned counsel do not appear to be

relevant for the purpose of granting or refusing anticipatory bail to the

petitioners. The learned counsel argued the matter on 25th August,

2008; 26th August, 2008; 19th September, 2008; 26th September, 2008;

17th October, 2008 and today. During and after the hearings on various

dates additional documents were also filed by the petitioners from time

to time. On 9th September, 2008 the petitioner had filed a set of

documents which include the order dated 10th August, 1994 passed in

suit no. 1753 of 1994 and order dated 22nd November, 1994, bank

statement from 11th April, 2003 to 10th September, 2005, copy of

complaint made by petitioners to the SHO dated 20/31st July, 1994 and

details of various names of the purchasers who are alleged to be

fictitious persons but who were interveners and another 20 fictitious

names. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mittal has taken this Court

meticulously through all these documents on various dates. The

petitioners also filed copies of Khasra Girdwari for the year 1988-89;

90-91;91-92; 92-93; 93-94; 94-95; 95-96; 96-97; 99-2000; 2001-2002

and 2004-2005 on 17th September, 2008 which do not show and from

which it cannot be inferred conclusively that the agreement to sell was

not executed in favor of the complainant and/or that she is not in

possession of the land which was purchased by her.

3. The complainant is Ms. Chandramukhi wife of Shri Kehar Singh

alleged to be a senior citizen aged about 61 years on the date the

complaint was filed by her. In the complaint she had averred that she

had purchased land measuring approximately 554 sq.yards forming

part of khasra No.73 situated within the revenue estate of Village Neb

Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi on 26th August, 1988 from Shri Jaipal

Singh son of Shri Chandgi Ram resident of F-80, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.

The documents of sale, viz., general power of attorney, agreement to

sell, affidavit, cash receipt and a Will were allegedly executed in favor of

complainant. It is averred by her that the vacant and physical

possession was also handed over to her.

4. The complainant in her complaint has stated that her vendor,

Shri Jaipal Singh, had told her that he had purchased land measuring

approximately 4340 sq.yards from one Shri Harnand (father of

petitioner No.7) son of late Shri Prabhati for a sum of Rs.7,16,100/- on

3rd July, 1987 and the land which was sold by Shri Jaipal Singh to the

complainant was part of the said land purchased by Shri Jaipal Singh

from Shri Harnand. It is also averred that Shri Jaipal Singh along with

three other acquaintances, Shri G.B. Tiwari son of Shri D.D. Tiwari;

Shri Daya Nand son of Shri Ganga Sahai; and Shri Dharminder Sharma

son of Shri Daya Nand, in all had purchased 21,700 sq.yards of land

out of a total of 5 acres of land owned by five bhoomidars, namely, Ram

Karan, Ram Dhan, Harnand, Swaroop Singh and Shyam Singh all sons

of Sh.Prabhati, resident of Neb Sarai, New Delhi on 3rd July, 1988 for a

total sum of Rs.35,80,500/- and the rights in land were transferred by

all the bhoomidars who had executed documents of sale, viz., agreement

to sell, affidavit, general power of attorney, cash receipts, wills etc. in

favor of Shri Jaipal Singh, Shri G.B. Tiwari, Shri Daya Nand and Shri

Dharminder Singh. The said four vendees had further sold the rights in

the land comprising 21,700 sq.yards to 46 different persons including

the complainant.

5. The complainant in her complaint further asserted that she

erected a boundary wall around the land which was purchased by her.

Some other purchasers out of remaining 45 purchasers of land from the

four vendors had also erected boundary walls. All the purchasers

formed a cooperative society under the name and style of "Harivansh

Vihar Plot-Holders Association" for the proper development of their

respective plots. It is also pleaded that the said Association paid a sum

of Rs.1.25 lakh to Freedom Fighters Colony Welfare Association, Neb

Sarai, New Delhi, for having access to their respective lands. The

grievance of the complainant is that in July 1994 the original

bhoomidars and widow of deceased Shyam Singh came with goons to

the said lands and attempted to demolish the boundary walls,

dwellings, etc. and FIR No.213 of 1994 was registered with Police

Station Mehrauli. Another FIR No.31 of 2000 under Section

323/341/34 IPC was also registered later on.

6. The complainant contended that one of the son of Ram Karan,

Shri Rajinder Singh Sheel is a Police Officer in Delhi Police and the

petitioners want to grab her land as the market prices have gone up

considerably. The complainant asserted that because in the revenue

record, the land is still mutated in the name of original bhoomidars,

petitioners are trying to take shelter under the said fact and want to

dispossess her. It is further contended that in furtherance of their

designs, the accused persons have also entered into

agreement/memorandum of understanding dated 19th October, 2004

with Shri Raghuvinder Singh and for the said deal for five acres of land

the amount settled was about Rs.7.00 crore out of which Rs.1.25 crore

has already been paid by Shri Raghuvinder Singh to accused Nos.1 to 3

and accused Nos.5 to 21. A number of criminal cases are alleged to be

pending against Shri. Raghuvinder Singh. It is also asserted that

initially the sale transaction was entered by the original bhoomidars

with Shri Ahmad Sultan Chawla but later on the said agreement was

cancelled as the vendee, Shri Ahmad Sultan Chawla, who had filed a

civil suit had compromised and the suit was dismissed as comprised.

Before the compromise, the plot holders who had been sold plots later

on by the transferees of the original bhoomidars were also impleaded as

parties. The lands have again been sold by the petitioners to Shri

Raghuvinder Singh. As for him it is contended that he is a notorious

land grabber and various FIRs are already registered against him. The

complainant also disclosed that another FIR No.110 of 2005 under

Sections 415/418/419/420/448/506/511 of Indian Penal Code is also

registered at the instance of M/s. Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt.

Ltd. The case pertaining to said FIR No.110 of 2005 is also pending

adjudication.

7. In the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioners and

Shri Raghuvinder Singh have committed offence of cheating and forgery

and they are threatening to dispossess the complainant. The

complainant contended that she has been receiving threatening calls

that the property has already been purchased by Shri Raghuvinder

Singh, who is a dangerous person and who also has links in police

higher-ups and politicians, and, therefore, the complainant should not

even try to go near her plot. Threats are alleged to have been given by

the petitioners. The husband of the complainant is alleged to have gone

to her plot on 9th May, 2005 when he was threatened. It is contended

that the complainant has been threatened that since land has been

purchased by Shri Raghuvinder Singh, complainant and her husband

should never come to her land. On complaints filed with the police, she

has received threats that she should forget her land in Neb Sarai and

should never try to put her foot on her plot, otherwise the consequences

would be dire and she would be eliminated. She has complained that

the records of P-5 Form have already been taken away from Tehsil

Mehrauli by the petitioners and Raghuvender Singh in connivance with

the officials. It is also asserted that Shri Rajinder Singh Sheel son of

Shri Ram Karan is conniving with petitioners and is also the real

kingpin with whom the criminal conspiracy has been hatched to grab

the land which was sold in 1988 to four persons including Shri Jaipal

Singh who had purchased it from Shri Harnand, the original bhoomidar,

who in turn had sold the land measuring 554 sq. yards to the

complainant. She alleged that sale deed had not been executed in her

favour on the pretext that no sale deed can be executed and registered

in respect of said land as it is banned in the said area and, therefore,

the agreement to sell and other documents were got executed. The

complainant has also made allegations against the Revenue officials

that they, at the instance of the bhoomidar, are giving notices as to why

the land, which is not used for agricultural purposes, be not vested in

Gram Sabha. The application of the complainant and others for

impleadment in the proceedings for complying with the directions given

in 1994, was also dismissed.

8. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail on the ground that

bhoomidar rights were given to the allottees or their legal

representatives by order dated 17th February, 1984 and the applications

of complainant and others to be impleaded as a party under Order I

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by Revenue

Assistant, Shri Bajrang Lal, by order dated 23rd September, 2003. The

appeal filed against the order dated 23rd September, 2003 in Case

No.222/RA/92 to 226/RA/92 being case No.226/2003 was also

dismissed by Financial Commissioner by order dated 18th December,

2003. According to the petitioner, the said order declaring them as

bhoomidar has become final which has not been challenged by the

complainant and other allottees. The learned counsel for the petitioners

very emphatically denied the proceedings in the suit filed by Shri Sultan

Ahmed Chawla where it was admitted by original bhoomidars that the

complainant and others are the owners and in physical possession. It

was contended by Shri Mittal that some of the persons who had been

impleaded in the suit of Sultan Ahmed Chawla were fake persons and

some of them did not have any documents in their favor and the order

was obtained by fraud. It will be pertinent to notice that on the basis of

agreement to sell in favor of Sultan Ahmed Chawla, a Civil Suit No.287

of 1989 was filed where a compromise was recorded on 29th November,

1990 with defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 46 other persons who had been

impleaded in the said suit. According to petitioners, the decree was

obtained by fraud. The petitioners have contended that between 1994 to

2004 they were dragged into multiple civil, criminal and revenue cases

and that the civil cases filed against the bhoomidars were adjudicated in

their favour on the question of transfer and the criminal cases are still

pending between the bhoomidars and their descendents on the one side

and the vendees on the other side. The petitioners have admitted that

in 2004 the bhoomidars entered into an agreement to sell their entire

land to Shri Raghuvinder Singh. It was also admitted by them that in

March 2005 on the basis of the complaint of M/s.Supreme

Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., an FIR No.110/2005 was registered and

they had entered into agreement to sell with Raghuvinder Singh later

on.

9. Petitioners have further contended that they have also got a cross

FIR No.270/2005 at Police Station Mehrauli registered against M/s.

Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd in which investigation are

pending. M/s. Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. has claimed to

have purchased 95% of the land from 45 persons except complainant

who had purchased from Shri G.B. Tiwari, Shri Jaipal Singh, Shri Daya

Nand and Shri Dharminder Sharma. It is also contended that a petition

under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of FIR

No.110/2005 filed by M/s.Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. is

pending and orders have been passed staying the arrest of one of the

accused which order is still valid.

10. The petitioners have filed a number of documents along with the

petition. During the protracted arguments by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, a number of other documents were filed. The facts

which emerge from these documents and the allegations made by the

petitioners can be tabulated as under for easy comprehension.

        1974                     Land allotted under 20 point program to,
                                 1.Ram Dhan; 2. Shyam Singh; 3.Sarup Singh;
                                 4.Harnand; 5.Ram Karan

        3.7.1987                 Five  bhoomidars  sold   their    land   to

1.Dharmender Sharma; 2.G.B.Tiwari; 3.Jaipal;

4.Dayanand.

Jai pal had purchased 4340 sq. yds of land for a sum of Rs.7,16,000 from Harnand.

The other three purchasers had purchased 21,700 sq. yds of land out of total 5 acres for a total consideration of 35,80,500/-

Later on in the same year, these four purchasers of land further sold the land to 46 persons including the complainant Chandermukhi.

26.08.1988 Complainant purchased about 554 sq. yds of land in Kahsra no..73 situated within revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai from Jai Pal who had purchased the land from Harnand and

other Bhoomidars. Boundary wall was also erected.

1989 Suit filed by Sultan Ahmed Chawla against the original bhoomidars for injunction on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favor.

29.11.1990 Suit no. 287 of 1989 filed by Ahmed Sultan Chawla for injunction was compromised.

Complainant was impleaded along with original bhoomidars and their transferees. It was admitted that the impleaded defendants are the bona fide owners in respect of their respective portions of land. Complainant had purchased about 554 sq.yds of Kashra no. 73 situated within Revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai from Jai Pal.

The counsel for bhoomidars in the application under Order 1 rule 10 had given no objection to impleadment of Complainant. Complainant was defendant no.35.

July, 1994 Ram Karan; Swaroop Singh; Harnand and Chhoti Devi widow of Shri Shyam Singh tried to demolish boundary walls and dwellings . FIR 213 of 1994 P.S Mehrauli was registered.

1994 Suit no.1753 of 1994 titled Ram Karan & ors Vs Jagdeep Rai & ors filed in the High Court seeking injunction against the petitioners.

15.4.1996 written statement filed in suit no. 1753 of 1994 titled Ram Karan & ors Vs Jagdeep Rai & ors denying that the plaintiffs are in actual, physical and cultivator possession of the land and that the plaintiffs were pressurized to sell their lands by the defendants in collusion with revenue staff and the local police.

13.4.1999 Suit no. 1753 of 1994 filed by petitioners against Jagdeep Rai & ors (Shri Jagdeep Rai, Shri Jitender Sharma, Lt.Col Baldev Arora and

Gram Sabha Neb Sarai) was dismissed with Costs. The Court held that the petitioners had withheld vital and relevant facts. (Apparently this suit was not filed against the complainant Smt. Chandermukhi)

20.8.1999 The order dated 13.4.1999 passed in the suit filed by the petitioners against Shri Jagdeep Rai, Shri Jitender Sharma, Lt.Col Baldev Arora and Gram Sabha Neb Sarai was reviewed and the plaint was returned, however, other finding about the concealment of facts by the petitioners was not reviewed or set aside.

Nothing has been shown and produced that the Plaint which was returned was refilled and it was established that the petitioners are in possession of the their lands which had been sold by them in 1988.

15.04.2004 M/s Supreme Infrastructure (India) Ltd purchased 21,000 sq. yds of land in Kasra Nos.

50,51,70,72,73 from 45 persons. Complainant, however, did not sell her plot to M/s Supreme Infrastructure.

19.10.2004 Petitioners entered into agreements with Sh.

Raghuvinder Singh for the same land which was sold by them to the four persons in 1988 who had sold them to 46 persons out of which 45 persons had sold it to M/s Supreme Infrastructure(India) Ltd, alleging that they are the co-owners and in possession of the lands in Khasra no. 51,70,72 and 73 in Neb Sarai.

03.03.2005 FIR no. 110/2005 P.S Mehrauli filed by Yogesh Kumar and Bal Ram Managing Director and Director of Supreme Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

9.5.2005 Husband of the Complainant went to plot of land where he was threatened. Complaints dated 11.5.2005 23.5.2005 and 9.8.2005 were made, however, no action was taken.

30.08.2005 Petitioners and others were granted bail in FIR No.110 of 2005 Filed by M/s Supreme Infrastructure (India ) Ltd.

23.09.2005 The application of the Complainant with others to implead them as a party to the proceedings u/s 81 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 dismissed by the Revenue Assistant mainly on the ground that the matter had been disposed by order dated 24.5.1994 and the only aspect which required adjudication was whether the petitioners had complied with time bound directions and therefore the application of the complainant to implead them was dismissed.

16.12.2005 Status report filed in case no. 1130/1/05 u/s 415/416/419/506 IPC in the Court of Deepak Garg, MM Patiala House.

        10.01.2006               Complainant filed complaint against    petitioners
                                 on account of attempt by them to       dispossess
                                 the complainant and on account of      conspiracy
                                 and fabrication of documents. FIR      NO. 24 of
                                 2006 police station Mehrauli

        21.2.2008                Petitioners petition for quashing of Complaint

filed by M/s Supreme Infrastructure dismissed by the High Court.

07.03.2008 Petition for anticipatory bail of the petitioner in FIR NO.24 of 2006 dismissed by the Session Judge in view of the documents placed by the complainant and because the case was still at the preliminary stage.

19.5.2008 Anticipatory Bail Application of Sh. Rajender Singh Sheel being Bail Application no. 651 of 2008 allowed and he was granted bail in case of arrest.

26.6.2008 Second Anticipatory bail application of some of the petitioners dismissed by the session judge in FIR No. 24 of 2006 of the complainant.

11. The complainant had contended that the consideration received

by the petitioners or their predecessor in 1988 on sale of their land was

deposited by them in their bank accounts. Regarding the opening of five

bank accounts where the money given by the vendees of agreement to

sell dated 3rd July, 1988, namely, Shri G.B. Tiwari, Shri Jaipal Singh,

Shri Daya Nand and Shri Dharminder Sharma is alleged to have been

deposited, it is contended by the petitioners that the funds were

deposited from the stone mining business which were later on closed

due to banning of mining activities.

12. The petitioners have also claimed grant of anticipatory bail on the

ground of parity as in the FIR 110 of 2005 filed on behalf of M/s.

Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. where similar allegations have

been made against the petitioners, they had been granted anticipatory

bail by order dated 30th April, 2005. It is contended that the petitioners

are entitled for anticipatory bail in the complaint filed by the sole

purchaser who had not sold her land holding to the company M/s

Supreme Infrastructure. It is also contended that the land always

continued to be in possession of the petitioners and that a finding to

that effect has been returned by the Revenue Authorities and reliance

has been placed on the copy of the order of the Revenue Authorities

dated 23rd March, 2003. The order dated 23rd March, 2003 is on the

application of the vendees for their impleadment under Order I Rule 10

of the Code of Civil Procedure in the proceedings under Section 81 of

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. It is also contended that one of the

accused, Shri Rajender Singh Sheel has also been granted anticipatory

bail by another single Judge of this Court in Bail Application No.651 of

2008 by order dated 19th May, 2008.

13. The petition for anticipatory bail is strongly opposed by the

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Sharma. He has contended

that the petitioners are selling the rights in the same land again and

again to different persons to defraud the purchasers. It is contended

that Petitioners or their predecessors as Bhoomidar made an agreement

to sell five acres of their land to Sultan Ahmed Chawla and received

Rs.3 lacs as advance money and they opened bank accounts at UCO

bank, Saket and deposited amount of their shares in the bank on the

same day i.e 13th January, 1988. These Bhoomidars then sold the rights

in the 5 acres of land to G.B.Tiwari, Jaipal, Dayananda, Dharmender

Sharma who further sold it to 46 buyers who formed Harvansh Vihar on

this land. Few of the plot holders had made their payments through

cheques. They deposited amount of their share in the UCO bank. The

complainant is stated to be one of such purchaser. It is further

contended that yet another agreement to sell dated 19.10.2004 was

made with Raguvinder Singh for Kasra No.50,51,70,72 and 73. For

this sale complaint FIR NO. 214 of 2005 was filed by Raguvender Singh

against M/s Supreme Infrastructure not against petitioners from whom

he had allegedly purchased the land. It was emphasized that the land

transaction between the forty five plot holders with M/s Supreme

Infrastructure was prior in time.

14. It is contended that the signature of Ram Karan and Swaroop

Singh as a witness to the documents executed by Harnand in favor of

Jaipal, from whom the complainant had purchased the land, have

matched. Similarly the signatures of purchasers i.e G.B.Tiwari, Jaipal

Singh, Daya Nand have also matched. The learned APP has contended

that the documents executed by the petitioners or their predecessors

were sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for

analysis and it has been established that the property documents

executed in favor of Mr. Yogesh Kumar of M/s Supreme Infrastructure,

complainant in FIR NO.11o of 2005 are true.

15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the

petitioners have sold the same land again and again to have unlawful

gains and have tried to dispossess the complainant. It is contended that

in 1990 suit filed by Sultan Ahmed Chawla was compromised in which

the predecessors of the petitioners were parties and in the compromise

application it was admitted that the impleaded defendants were owners

and in possession of their respective lands. The complainant

Chandermukhi was defendant no.35.

16. It is also contended that the petitioners have not joined the

investigation even in the FIR which was registered at their instance

being FIR No. 270 of 2005 Police Station Mehrauli. Details of notices

which were sent to them despite which the petitioners have not

appeared before the investigating officers, have been given in the status

report dated 15th October, 2008. It is contended that the fact that the

petitioners are not joining the investigation was even reported to the

Learned Magistrate through the status report filed under section 156(3)

of Cr. P.C. The son of the petitioner Ram Karan is also stated to have

received notices issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C in FIR no.214 of

2005 who made an endorsement on the notices to the effect that

different persons in whose names the notices were issued were out of

Delhi.

17. It is also stated that the documents of PNB filed by the petitioners

seems to be forged and detailed investigation is required to unearth the

facts. It is also disclosed that the petitioners including Ram Karan got a

certificate issued from a Notary Public named Chaman Lal certifying

that he had not attested the documents in respect of Khasra no.

50,51,70,72 and 73 Village Neb Sarai in favor of M/s Supreme

Infrastructure ( I) Pvt. Ltd who had filed FIR no. 110 of 2005. The said

certificate issued by the Notary was filed in the Court and when it was

investigated, it transpired that the said Notary Public had connived

with the petitioners and had destroyed the original register of relevant

period. However, the photocopy of the destroyed register appears to

have been found to be authentic. The allegation is also that some of the

petitioners have connived with the Notary Public in destroying the

original register and fabricating another forged register.

18. From the facts prima facie what emerges is that Ram Karan,

Harnand (dead), Swaroop Singh, Shyam Singh (dead) and Ram Dhan

(dead) were given bhoomidari rights in 1984 and they entered into

common agreement to sell with Sultan Ahmad Chawla. After selling

their lands to Sultan Ahmed Chawla, the lands consisting of khasra

Nos.50, 51, 72, 72 and 73, Village Neb Sarai were again transferred in

the names of G.B. Tiwari, Jai Pal, Daya Nand, Dharmender Sharma and

the advance money received by the said bhoomidars were deposited by

them in their respective accounts in UCO Bank. Complainant is one of

the purchasers from one of the transferees. Though the Suit No.287 of

1989 was filed by Sultan Ahmad Chawla, however, the said suit was

dismissed as withdrawn as a compromise was arrived and the

transferees were impleaded as parties and they were admitted to be

owner and in possession of their respective plots.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has painstakingly

contended that there are lots of fictitious persons, however, the fact

cannot be denied that the bhoomidari rights were transferred to G.B.

Tiwari, Jai Pal, Daya Nand and complainant got her rights from one of

the transferee Sh. Jai Pal. The signatures of some of these purchasers

and of the petitioners have been found to be genuine. The suit filed by

Sultan Ahmed Chawla was compromised after complainant was

impleaded as defendant no.35. It was admitted in that suit that the

complainant was the owner and in possession of her plot of lands. The

learned counsel for the petitioners have tried to contend that the

predecessors of the petitioners were not represented and have also tried

to contend that some of the defendants who were impleaded were fake

persons. Perusal of the order passed by the Court and the statement

recorded clearly reflects that the counsel for Petitioner no.1 and other

bhoomidars categorically agreed for the impleadment of transferees,

including the Complainant. The plea of the petitioners in the facts and

circumstances is not acceptable. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioners has also tried to refer to suit filed by the petitioner in the

High Court being suit no.1753 of 1994, the said suit was dismissed

holding that the petitioner had concealed facts and on review the plaint

was returned. However, the finding that the petitioners had concealed

the material particulars was not reviewed. The suit for injunction which

was returned by the High Court was not refilled as nothing has been

filed to show that it was refilled nor any order passed in the said suit

after it was returned, has been produced. In any case the complainant

was not a party to that suit. Prima facie the petitioners cannot contend

that the complainant is not in possession of her plot of land, even on

the basis of dismissal of application under order 1 rule 10 of Code of

Civil Procedure for impleadment in the proceedings before the revenue

assistant, which proceedings were for implementation of direction given

in 1994 for restoration of use of land. Prima facie nothing has been

shown that the complainant is not in possession of her plot of land

since 1990 when in the suit filed by the Sultan Ahmed Chawla, the

petitioners and their predecessors had admitted the complainant to be

the owner and in possession.

20. Prima facie the signatures of Ram Karan and Swaroop Singh as

witnesses to the documents executed by Harnand in favour of Jai Pal

are found to be genuine and the complainant Chandermukhi is

purchaser from Jai Pal. The documents executed by original

bhoomidars have also been opined to be genuine and issued prior to

date of execution. The documents executed by Ram Karan, Swaroop

Singh, Ram Dhan, Harnand and Shyam Singh and submitted by

Yogesh Kumar director of M/s Supreme Enclave have the signatures of

Ram Karan, Swaroop Singh and Ram Dhan as per the report of the

GEQD (Government Examiner of Questioned Documents).

21. The allegation against petitioner No.1 is also about manipulation

of record along with his son and conniving with the notary public,

Chaman Lal. The notary public has also allegedly destroyed the original

notary register and is alleged to have fabricated another register. The

petitioners are also alleged to have sold the rights in the same land in

connivance and conspiracy to Raghuvinder Singh against whom a

number of other criminal proceedings are pending. Shri Raghuvinder

Singh is also alleged to be aware of the status of the land as he allegedly

runs a godown/card factory outside the disputed land.

22. The petitioners cannot claim parity with the case filed by M/s

Supreme Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. The said company is the

purchaser of lands from 45 other plot holders. The learned counsel for

the petitioner himself have pointed out various persons out of those

persons to be fake persons and in case of some of whom the documents

were also not executed before they were impleaded as a party in the suit

filed by the Sultan Ahmed Chawla. As far as the complainant is

concerned, the documents were executed in her favor and she was

impleaded as defendant no.35 and she was accepted to be the owner

and in possession of her plot. If the decree passed, pursuant to a

compromise, in the case of Sultan Ahmed Chawla was not legal and

contrary to the contentions and pleas of the petitioners, they should

have challenged the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

not been able to show any decree or order passed by the Civil Court

holding that the complainant is not the owner and not in possession of

her plot. The proceedings before the revenue authorities also do not

negate the rights of the complainant. The petitioners cannot claim

anticipatory bail as a right on the basis of bail granted to Rajender

Singh Sheel who was only an attesting witness to the subsequent

agreement executed by the petitioners. The parity as claimed by the

petitioners is not available in the facts and circumstances. Even

according to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners a

number of persons who sold the land to M/s Supreme Infrastructure

were fake persons. But that is not the case with complainant.

23. An undated affidavit which is also not attested has also been filed

by the petitioner nos.1,2,3,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 & 17 stating that

they do not have ownership rights or right of possession in the land of

the complainant. Such a declaration is meaningless as this affidavit is

not attested and in any case the said petitioners have not stated that

they will not try to dispossess the petitioner and will not take law in

their own hands. The Petitioner no. 4 had died on 8th August, 2008.

Petitioner no.7 (Sh. Mahender Singh) and petitioner no.8 (Smt. Sunnero

Devi w/o Sh. Ram Dhan have not filed even this alleged declaration.

24. It cannot be disputed that the power of granting `Anticipatory

Bail' is extraordinary in character and only in exceptional cases where it

appears that a person is falsely implicated or a frivolous case is

launched against him should the power be exercised. Where there are

reasonable grounds for holding that a person will not participate in

investigation or otherwise will misuse the liberty while on bail then the

power should not be exercised. This power to grant anticipatory bail is

unusual in nature and is not to be exercised as a matter of right for the

accused. In Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Administration, (1978) 1

SCC 118, it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that

" ...there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail.

In American Jurisprudence (2d, Volume 8, page 806, para 39), it

is stated:

"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.

25. The anticipatory bail cannot be granted nor can it be claimed by

the petitioner as a matter of right. In Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of

India,(2002) 2 SCC 210, at page 219 the Apex Court had noted the 41st

Report of the Law Commission and held:

"It is noteworthy that the 41st Report of the Law Commission recommended for the first time inclusion of a provision for what is called anticipatory bail (vide Section 438 CrPC). Section 438 contemplates an application by a person on an apprehension of arrest in regard to the commission of a non-bailable offence: the object being to relieve a person from unnecessary harassment or disgrace and it is granted when the court is otherwise convinced that there is no likelihood of misuser of the liberty granted since he would neither abscond nor take such step so as to avoid due process of law."

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also emphatically relied

on the decision dated 19th of May 2008 in bail application number 651

of 2008 where anticipatory bail was granted to Shri Rajender Singh

Sheel. The said person is not the executant of the agreements which

have been executed by the petitioners from time to time to defraud the

purchasers as has been alleged. The case of applicant in Bail

application no. 651 of 2008 is distinguishable and parity which has

been claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not available.

Merely because some of the facts overlap with the facts of that case,

does not entitled the petitioners for anticipatory bail in the present facts

and circumstances nor the parity as has been alleged by the petitioners

exist in the facts and circumstances. There were no allegations against

the applicant of bail application no.651 of 2008, Rajender Singh Sheel

that he had not participated in the investigation. In contradistinction,

the present petitioners have not joined investigation even in their own

complaint. Some of the relevant documents are yet to be recovered and

considering all the facts and circumstances especially the insistence of

the petitioners to dispossess the complainant even by force, it is

apparent that the custodial interrogation of at least those petitioners

who are male, is required. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

also tried to contend that it is the will of the petitioners to appear or not

to appear in the investigation pursuant to their own complaint. Such a

plea, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. The allegations against the

petitioners are of cheating, forgery of documents and criminal

intimidation.

27. Therefore in the totality of the facts and circumstance considering

the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedent acts on the

part of the petitioners and imputable to them, the petition for grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 13, 15 and 17

is dismissed. The petitioner no.4 has since died on 8th August, 2008 as

stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner nos.8,14

and 16 are however, entitled to Anticipatory bail being women in the

present facts and circumstances. Therefore petitioner nos. 8,14 and 16

are granted Anticipatory bail and in case of their arrest, they be

released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds for a sum of

Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of like amount to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner nos. 8, 14 and 17

shall not try to influence the witnesses and will not threaten the

complainant. With these directions the petition is partly allowed and

disposed of.

Dasti.

December 19, 2008                               ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'