Gaurav Dhingra & Anr. vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5546 Del

$~37
          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      Bail Application No. 1096/2008

       GAURAV DHINGRA & ANR.                         ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Advocate

                     Versus

       STATE                                                    ..... Respondent
                              Through: Ms. Meera Bhatia, ASC for the State
                              Mr. G.P.Theraja, Advocate for the Complainant

       CORAM:
       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

                O R D E R (ORAL)

% 06.12.2010

The applicants have sought anticipatory bail on the ground that the

applicants have been falsely implicated and in any case there was no necessity

of custodial interrogation.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the

applicants sold property no. 20/26-B, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi to the

complainant. Sale deed was executed and the possession of the entire property

was handed over to the complainant by the applicants. However, the applicants

requested the complainant that the applicants be let out first floor portion of the

property so as to accommodate their parents who were old and in the meantime

they shall search for alternate accommodation for them. A rent agreement was

entered into and first floor as well as kitchen at the ground floor was let out by the

complainant to the applicants in order to accommodate the old/aged parents of

the applicants. The complainant had locked rest of the property after putting her goods and articles in the house. The complainant after few days learnt that her

locks had been broken open and the entire property repossessed by the

applicants; all her goods had been stolen and removed. The contention of the

applicants was that the possession was never handed over to the complainant

and the possession was with the applicants only and the complaint was false. It

was a civil dispute. This aspect was considered by the trial Court and it was

found that the applicants had filed a Civil Suit being CS(OS) No. 1096/05 before

the High Court and therein it was categorically admitted that the possession of

the ground floor was handed over to the complainant and was with the

complaining party. This turn around about the possession was taken by the

applicants after the complainant requested the Court to appoint a Local

Commissioner and the Local Commission found that the entire building was in

the possession of the applicants. It is obvious that the applicants had received

huge consideration from the complainant and later on broke open the locks of

complainant removed all the goods of the complainant and took over the

possession. It looks as if the intention of the applicants, from the very beginning,

was to cheat the complainant and perhaps for this reason the applicants had

stalled their old parents in the property. The complainant still stands deprived of

the possession of the property. The applicants had made no effort to restore the

possession of the property to the complainant.

I consider the custodial interrogation of the applicants was necessary to

find out where the goods of the complainant had been removed and to recover

the goods of the complainant and other evidence regarding trespass and breaking open of locks etc. The facts also reveal that the applicants were hand

in glove with their parents in trespassing into the entire property and stealing the

goods. The whole operation done by the applicants smacks of a well designed

conspiracy of the applicants along with other accused persons to cheat and loot.

I do not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is

hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J

DECEMBER 06, 2010 vn