Delhi High Court
Ravinder Maan vs State on 6 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009
Decided on 06.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
RAVINDER MAAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Harindra Kumar, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
SI K.R. Kundan, EOW Crime Branch
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present application is filed by the petitioner under
Section 438 read with 492 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of
anticipatory bail for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120B IPC on the basis of an FIR dated 2.8.2007 lodged by
one Shri Moharram with PS Alipur, Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case, as reflected from the status
report dated 16.12.2009 filed by the learned APP for the State, are
that the complainant filed a complaint in the year 1999-2000 against
Ravinder Mann, petitioner herein and two others, namely Harkishan @
Harki and Surjeet Singh. He stated that they had met him at Azadpur
Sabzi Mandi and offered him land for sale at villages Khampur and
Hamidpur. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the
other persons, mentioned herein above, took the complainant to
village Hamidpur and informed him that a plot of land measuring about
1600 sq. yards belonged to one Shri Mukhtiyar and that they could
facilitate the purchase of that land. Another plot of land measuring
about 120 sq. yards belonging to one Shri Mohan Lal was also shown
to the complainant and he was informed that the same was available
for sale. Believing the version of the aforesaid persons, the
complainant made payments in installments to them to the tune of
Rs.6.44 lacs against sale of 7 different plots. Subsequently, the
complainant came to know that the plots which were sold to him, were
not in existence or they were in the name of some other persons.
The documents signed by the complainant and the alleged persons
were provided to the police by the complainant along with the
specimen signatures and referred to the FSL for comparison and for
furnishing an expert opinion.
3. The Status Report mentions that one of the plots purchased
by the complainant was on the basis of the petitioner herein executing
a GPA in favour of one Satish, who stated that the said plot was
purchased from the petitioner herein and had been pledged to
Harikishan against a loan, who in turn, did not return the documents
to him. On enquiry, the Registrar's Office also confirmed that the land
belonged to one Shri Raj Singh, and that the petitioner herein had no
authority to execute any GPA in favour of Satish, in respect of the
aforesaid property. The details of the land sold to the complainant and
his family members is furnished in the status report.
4. Besides the complainant, another lady by the name of Smt.
Leela w/o Shri Rajkumar has also complained that the petitioner
herein and 2 other accused have tried to sell the same parcel of land
and have entered into an agreement with her with regard to sale of
land which did not belong to them.
5. The report further reveals that several persons have been
examined during the course of investigation and the said witnesses
have corroborated the version of the complainant and have clearly
stated that the present petitioner along with Harikishan @ Harki and
Surjeet Singh have induced the complainant to make payments in
consideration for the sale of land and gave the complainant forged
property documents in respect of the land, which they did not own.
6. Pertinently, the bail application of the petitioner was
dismissed by the Session's Court, vide order dated 18.10.2007 and a
similar application filed by the petitioner earlier, being Bail Application
No.2819/2007, was sought to be withdrawn. The said petition was
consequently dismissed vide order dated 10.4.2008. Yet another
anticipatory bail application was moved by the petitioner before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed, vide order
dated 20.11.2009. No fresh cause of action has arisen, nor have any
new circumstances or grounds urged by the petitioner to maintain yet
another petition for anticipatory bail.
7. Further, the learned APP for the State states that the
petitioner has not given any effective assistance to the Investigating
Officer and nor has he produced the documents sought from him.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the present petition for anticipatory bail.
The same is accordingly dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI,J
JULY 06, 2010
sk
