Delhi High Court
Smt. Durgesh Bansal vs State on 31 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Application Nos. 2512 & 2514 of 2009
% Pronounced on:31st December 2009
# SMT. DURGESH BANSAL ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Bijender Singh, Adv.
versus
$ STATE ..... Respondent
! Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
AND
# ANIL KUMAR BANSAL ..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Bijender Singh, Adv.
versus
$ STATE ..... Respondent
! Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP
* CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
: V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners either
forged or got forged the signatures and stamp of Sh. R.K. Khatri,
Advocate on the documents purporting to be executed by Smt.
Shanti Devi Bansal, mother of the petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal
in favour of Anil Kumar Bansal. A perusal of the Power of
Attorney and affidavit purporting to be executed by Shanti Devi
Bansal would show that the stamp papers have been purchased
on 9th September, 2002. The attestation by Sh. R.K. Khatri,
Notary Public is dated 7th September, 2002. Prima facie, a
document stamp paper for which was purchased for 9 th
September, 2002 could not have been attested by Sh. R.K. Khatri
on 7th September, 2002. Signatures of Sh. R.K. Khatri were
taken during the course of investigation and sent to FSL and it
has been reported that the questioned signatures are not the
signatures of Sh. R.K. Khatri. In any case, this is not the case of
the petitioners that these documents bear genuine signature of
Sh. R.K. Khatri, Notary Public.
2. As per the receipt issued, Smt. Shanti Devi Bansal, mother
of the petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal sold her half share in the
first floor of property bearing Municipal No.29 built on Plot No.
B-3 measuring 217.5 Sq. Yds. for a total consideration of
Rs.50,000/-. Admittedly, no payment to Smt. Shanti Devi Bansal
has been made by way of a cheque or Pay Order and case of the
petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal is that he paid the entire sale
consideration of Rs.50,000/- in cash to his mother. Ordinarily,
atleast part payment is made by cheque/Pay Order, in
transactions involving sale/purchase of immovable property so
as to have some documentary proof of payment of consideration.
Moreover, prima facie it is difficult to accept that half share in
the first floor built on plot measuring 217.5 Sq. Yds. could be
sold for Rs.50,000/- even in September, 2002.
3. Smt. Shanti Devi Bansal has claimed in her statement
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that her signatures on these
documents were obtained by deceiving her and making a
misrepresentation that these were required for a DCM case
regarding the dispute of a shop.
4. The Investigating Officer requires custodial interrogation
of the petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal to find out how the
signatures and stamp of Sh. R.K. Khatri came to be forged on the
documents purporting to be executed by Smt. Shanti Devi
Bansal. He also wants to ascertain who were the other persons
involved in forgery of the signatures and stamp of Public Notary
on these documents. Unless custodial interrogation of the
petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal is carried out, it will not be
possible for the Investigating Officer to unearth the conspiracy
pursuant to which the signatures and stamp of Public Notary
came to be forged on the documents.
In „Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan‟, AIR 1985 SC 969,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Relevant considerations governing the
court‟s decision in granting anticipatory bail
under Section 438 are materially different
from those when an application for bail by a
person who is arrested in the course of
investigation as also by a person who is
convicted and his appeal is pending before the
higher court and bail is sought during the
pendency of the appeal. These situations in
which the question of granting or refusing to
grant bail would arise, materially and
substantially differ from each other and the
relevant considerations on which the courts
would exercise its discretion, one way or the
other, are substantially different from each
other."
In „State of Andhra Pradesh vs. B.K. Kundu‟, JT 1997
(8) SC 382, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that when the
accused is pitted against allegations involving a well
orchrastred conspiracy, he should not have been granted
anticipatory bail. In „CBI vs. Anil Sharma‟, JT 1997 (7) SC 651,
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the effective
investigation of the suspect is of tremendous advantage in
disinterring useful information and also the material which
would have been concealed. It was further observed that the
success in such interrogation would elude if the suspect persons
knows that he is well insulated and protected by the pre-arrest
bail order, during the time he is interrogated and very often
interrogation in such a condition would be reduced to a ritual.
5. Hence, there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner Anil Kumar Bansal.
6. As regards the petitioner Smt. Durgesh Bansal, considering
the fact that she is not the beneficiary of a document purporting
to be executed by Smt. Shanti Devi Bansal and is only a
housewife, who might have put her signatures on the request or
persuasion of her husband, it is directed that in the event of her
arrest, she shall be released on bail in the case FIR No. 53/2009
registered at Police Station Gulabi Bagh under Sections
420/468/471 of IPC, on her furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions
that:
(i) she shall not leave the Country without prior permission of
the Court,
(ii) she shall deposit her passport, if any, along with the bail
bond and
(iii) she shall join investigation as and when directed.
Bail Applications No. 2512 & 2514 of 2009 & Crl.M.A. No.
15143 & 15146 of 2009 stand disposed of.
(V.K.JAIN)
VACATION JUDGE
DECEMBER 31, 2009
AG
