M.S. Saini vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4205 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      Bail Application No. 1550/2008

%                                Date of Reserve : 08.10.2009
                                 Date of Decision : 20.10.2009


       M.S. SAINI                           ...PETITIONER
                                 Through: Mr.Ajay Burman, Mr.Rajesh
                                          Samanotra and Mr.R.K.Singh,
                                          Advocates

                          VERSUS

       STATE                                 ...RESPONDENT
                             Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for the
                                      State along with SI Ashok Kumar,
                                       IO, SIT/Crime Branch
                                       Mr.Sanjay Rathi, Advocate for
                                      the complainant.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers         Yes
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?            Yes

3.     Whether the judgment should be                Yes
       reported in the Digest?

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the bail application filed by the petitioner,

M.S.Saini, who is in judicial custody in a case arising out of FIR

No.14/2005 under Sections 420/467/471/120-B IPC registered at Police

Station Model Town.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is an innocent person

and has been falsely implicated and arrested in the present case. Even

otherwise, there is no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is a

lawyer by profession and was counsel for Charanjit Singh in cases filed by

Naresh Kumar in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi. It is also submitted that

Smt.Shakuntala Devi was the owner of the property bearing No. 46, Ishwar

Colony, who sold the said property to Rajinder Kumar on 21.04.1989 vide

GPA and agreement to sell, etc. It is also submitted that the complainant,

Naresh Kumar, is a fake person having no relationship with Shakuntala Devi

and by playing the deception obtained mutation order dated 09.12.2002 from

DDA regarding the premises in dispute, which has been cancelled by the

DDA on 20.04.2004. It is also submitted that regarding the other property

bearing No. DE-119, Tagore Garden, Delhi as well, the DDA has cancelled

the mutation vide order dated 10.04.2008. Since both mutations were

obtained by misrepresentation and concealment of facts an FIR has been

ordered to be registered against Naresh Kumar by DDA. The present FIR

was registered illegally on the behest of land mafia, who wanted to grab the

said premises illegally. The present FIR is a pressure tactics to make undue

pressure and harassment to the petitioner and others so as to desist them

from contending the dispute of the said property despite the fact that the

police concerned has taken no action upon the earlier complaint dated

03.01.2005 lodged by Charanjit Singh as against the complainant and others.

It is also submitted that the petitioner has neither prepared any forged

documents of the premises No. 46, Ishwar Colony, Delhi nor the said

documents were prepared in his presence. A false disclosure statement has

been taken from one Ved Prakash Saini by the Investigating Officer. The

petitioner was engaged as counsel in the said matter much after the

possession was taken in execution of the premises in question and has not

committed any offence of forgery, cheating or any other offence mentioned

in the FIR. Even otherwise a bare perusal of signature of Charanjit Singh

on various documents including vakalatnama and the specimen signatures

taken of Ved Prakash Saini show that they are of different persons. It is

also submitted that as per the arbitration award both Rajinder and Charanjit

Sigh were present which also, prima facie, shows that they are different

persons. It is also submitted that Ved Prakash or Raju or Manoj Kumar

Nagpal had no concern with the premises No.46, Ishwar Colony, Delhi for

which the FIR in question has been registered and nothing has been

recovered from Ved Prakash Saini and present petitioner during their

custodial interrogation. It is also submitted that the matter is sub-judiced

before the Civil Court and it is the Civil Court which has to decide to whom

the property actually belongs to. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a

practicing lawyer having 20 years of standing and there is no chance of his

absconding or tampering with the evidence. It is also submitted that the

investigation in the present case is complete and charge sheet has been filed

and learned ACMM has been pleased to take cognizance only under Section

420 IPC against the present petitioner. No useful purpose would be served

by keeping the petitioner in further judicial custody. It is also submitted that

the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency. He

belongs to a respectable family having clean antecedent and deep roots in

the society and is ready to abide by all terms and conditions, if any, imposed

by this Court while granting bail.

3. According to learned APP, the petitioner represented Charanjit Singh in

the Court at Delhi and Gorakpur, who is a non-existing person. He also

fabricated documents in the name of deceased Smt.Shakuntala Devi, the

original owner of property bearing No. 46, Ishwar Colony, Delhi. He also

fabricated an arbitration award in Gorakhpur in respect of this property in

favour of one Rajender Kumar, who also does not exist. Both Charanjit

Singh and Rajender Kumar are one person as thumb prints and photographs

of both are identical. Ved Prakash Saini, co-accused of the petitioner, had

impersonated both Charanjit Singh and Rajender Kumar and was arrested in

this case. On the basis of the arbitration award the property was transferred

to Charanjit Singh. This property was then further transferred to one Manoj

Kumar Nagpal through a Special Power of Attorney. This special power of

attorney was also prepared by the petitioner. This property was lying

locked. On 19.4.2002 Manoj Kumar Nagapal took possession of this

property through baliff in the presence of the petitioner. The baliff proved

the presence of the petitioner also at the spot. Manoj Kumar Nagpal was

known to the petitioner. Presently, he is untraceable. It is also alleged

against the petitioner that in a similar fashion he took possession of another

property at B-169, Janta Colony, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. The original

owner of this property was Kiran Kumar Nagpal. The petitioner forged

documents to show that the owner was the so-called Manoj Kumar Nagpal,

an associate of the petitioner. This property was then shown as bought by

Rajender Kumar (non existing person) through a GPA. Rajender Kumar

was then shown to sell the property to Nirdosh Saini, wife of the petitioner.

The petitioner stood witness in this deal. Ms.Nirdosh Saini then sold this

property to two persons by bifurcating the plot. The new owners were

Smt.Vimla Devi w/o Duli Chand, r/o Janta Colony, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi

and Santosh Kumari w/o Mohan Lal r/o B-59, Janta Colony, Raghubir

Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, Smt.Vimla Devi sold her half to Smt.Rupam

Jaiswal w/o Udai Jaiswal, while Smt. Santosh Kumari sold her half to Geeta

Kumari. It is submitted that on the basis of the complaint made by the

owner of the property at Ishwar Colony, the FIR of this case was registered

on 08.10.2005 when the second fraud played by the petitioner was also

unearthed. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.04.2008 and is

also in judicial custody since then. The investigation has substantiated all

the allegations against the petitioner as aforesaid. The charge sheet coupled

with FSL report also substantiates the case of the prosecution. It is thus

submitted that the appellant who is a law graduate and had been practicing

advocate is not entitled to bail in this case. More so, his co-accused namely

Ved Prakash Saini had been denied bail by a learned Judge of this Court

vide order dated 08.10.2008. Nothing new has come in favour of the

petitioner to enlarge him on bail. His non-furnishing of address of Charanjit

Singh has further proved that he was non-existing person.

4. The allegations made against the petitioner by the prosecution are

serious in nature. Apparently, the petitioner along with co-accused has

cheated innocent persons by fabricating documents and impersonating

persons who are non-existent by obtaining award on the basis of fraudulent

representations. They have divested the complainant and one other person

from the properties. Merely because the petitioner is in judicial custody for

more than one year it does not make out a case of bail.

5. It is true that property at Ishwar Colony has been found to be lying

vacant and has been taken possession by the State in terms of the order

orders passed by this Court but the fact remain that another property was

ultimately came to be occupied by the wife of the petitioner which now

stands sold to third parties. The petitioner and his wife could take the

possession of the property only because they got an award in favour of a

non-existing person. The documents placed on record by the prosecution

goes to show that the petitioner and his co-accused Ved Prakash Saini were

directly involved in the fabrication of other documents in favour of non-

existing persons, namely, Charanjit Singh and Rajinder Kumar which

enabled them to benefit themselves for taking possession of the property of

others including that of the complainant.

6. In view of the above and taking into consideration the orders passed

by the learned Single of this Court in the case of co-accused, I do not find it

to be a fit case to admit the petitioner on bail.

7. Bail application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if

any, also stand dismissed. However, nothing stated herein will be treated as

any comment on the merits of the case and will not preclude the trial court to

decide the matter on merits un-influenced by the observations made above.

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

October 20, 2009 dc