Janaki vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2010 Latest Caselaw 2549 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Bail Application No. 488/2010

%                    Date of Decision: 12th MAY,2010


#       JANAKI                                                .....PETITIONER

!                    Through:   Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Advocate.

                                      VERSUS

$       THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                              ..RESPONDENT

^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Mr. J.P. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

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

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a criminal case under Section

420 IPC, got registered against her by the complainant vide FIR No. 56/10

at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.

2. Arguments on this bail application have been heard.

3. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State and the same

has also been perused by this Court.

4. The petitioner was working as a maid servant in the house of the

complainant's father, who had retired as a Class-I Gazetted Officer 15

years ago. The complainant's father is an old person of more than 76

years of age. The Status Report reveals that the petitioner has

abused and misused her position of maid servant and is alleged to have

cheated the complainant and his father to the tune of about Rs. 1 crore.

She got his property being House No. 1869, Outram Lines, Kingsway

Camp, Delhi-110 009, transferred in her name by fabricating the

Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney of the said property in her name

by getting the thumb impression of complainant's father on the said

documents in fraudulent manner. The petitioner is shown to have paid

Rs.19,90,000/- as sale consideration to the complainant's father for

purchasing his property. Not only she got his aforementioned property

transferred in her name, she is alleged to have also withdrawn a huge

amount of Rs. 75 lakhs from different bank accounts of the complainant's

father and got it deposited in bank in her name and in the name of her

children. She is further alleged to have operated the bank locker of the

complainant's father fraudulently and is alleged to have removed the

entire jewellery and other valuables lying in his locker. The

complainant's father is stated to be suffering from dementia and advance

stage of 'Parkinson'. He is more than 76 years of age.

5. Counsel for the petitioner was asked if the petitioner was working

as a maid servant in the house of the complainant's father, where from

she got the huge amount to the tune of about Rs. 1 crore for purchasing

his property and for depositing a huge amount in her bank account and

in the accounts of her children in a short span of time. However,

counsel for the petitioner had no answer to this query but to state that

this money was paid to her by the complainant's father only. It is difficult

to believe that the complainant or his father would pay such a huge

amount of Rs. 1 crore to their maid servant and would transfer their

movable and immovable properties in her name. The accusations

against the petitioner are of very serious nature which do not entitle her

for pre-arrest bail. She is accused of having cheated her master and has

thereby belied the trust reposed in her. This Court is conscious of the

fact that the petitioner is a female but in the opinion of this Court, this

alone is not sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail to her when accusations of

cheating against her are of very serious nature.

6. Her bail application is strongly opposed by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State stating that the

custodian interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to dig out the crime

brought to book by the complainant through FIR in question. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits

that the custodian interrogation of the petitioner is also required to

ascertain as to who are the other conspirators with the petitioner in

cheating the complainant and his father in the manner stated above.

7. Taking stock of all the facts and circumstances of the case

mentioned above, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioner. Her bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

MAY 12, 2010                                     S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'MA'