Kartar Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi)
2011 Latest Caselaw 1633 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            Judgment delivered on: March 22, 2011

+      BAIL APPLICATION NO.1838/2010

       KARTAR SINGH                      ....PETITIONER
               Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with
               Dr.A.K.Singh and Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocates.

                             Versus

       THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....RESPONDENT

Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP.

Complainant in person with Mr.O.P.Wadhwa and Ms.Koplin Kaur, Advocates.

+      BAIL APPLICATION NO.1894/2010

       NEERAJ SHOKEEN                    ....PETITIONER

Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Dr.A.K.Singh and Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocates.

Versus

THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....RESPONDENT Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.

Complainant in person with Mr.O.P.Wadhwa and Ms.Koplin Kaur, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.716/2010

under Sections 448/380/506/34 IPC registered at P.S. Mangol Puri

on the complaint of Ms.Preeti Nalwa.

2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant Ms.Preeti Nalwa

purchased 250 sq. yards land forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2

Village Mangol Pur Kalan on 4.6.2008 from Smt.Sushma Gupta

w/o Sudhir Gupta for sale consideration of `16,55,400/-. She also

purchased another piece of land measuring 500 sq. yards

forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2 Village Mangol Pur Kalan from

Sudhir Gupta for sale consideration of `33 lacs. It is claimed in

the FIR that there was a shed constructed on the aforesaid plots

and various articles were lying there. When the complainant

visited the said plots on 13.10.2010, she found that petitioners

Kartar Singh and Neeraj Shokeen had encroached upon the

aforesaid plots. This led to the complainant filing a complaint

resulting in registration of FIR No.716/2010 dated 21.10.2010

under Sections 448/380/506/34 IPC P.S. Mangol Puri.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the land in

question falls in Khasra No.70/1/1 and placed reliance upon Lal

Dora Certificate issued in the year 1983. Learned counsel further

argued that a civil Suit No.1005/2009 was filed against the

petitioner Neeraj Shokeen and his brother Kishan Kumar

Shokeen, sons of Kartar Singh by the occupants of said property

which is claimed to be three storied. In the said civil suit, the

plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the tenants under the sons of

petitioners which, prima facie, established that the petitioners

were in possession of said property in the year 2009 i.e. much

prior to the filing of the FIR. Learned counsel further argued that

the petitioner Neeraj Shokeen and his brother also filed a suit for

injunction against the complainant in respect of said property

wherein an ex parte injunction was granted against the

complainant in October, 2010. Learned counsel also referred to

certain photographs and the site plan which are placed on record

to show that the property in dispute forms part of Khasra

No.70/1/1 and is in possession of the petitioners for the last

almost more than 7 years.

4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant

contended that the complainant has purchased the plots in

question through registered Sale Deeds from the owners,

namely, Sushma Gupta and Sudhir Gupta. Learned APP

submitted that investigation has revealed that the property,

which is subject-matter of FIR, was initially owned by petitioner

Kartar Singh who sold the same through a registered General

Power of Attorney to Bishan Sharma and Bishan Sharma sold that

property to Sushma Gupta and Sushil Gupta, who, in turn, had

sold the property to the complainant against consideration

amount of `16,55,400/- in respect of one plot and `33 lacs in

respect of other plot. Learned APP also referred to the

demarcation report prepared by the `Patwari' wherein he has

reported that plots in question falls within Khasra No.70/1/2 and

he also referred to the statements of previous owners recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to show that they had verified that the

land in question was ultimately sold to the petitioners. Learned

APP further submitted that the civil suit filed by the sons of the

petitioners is only a ploy to grab the land belonging to the

complainant. Learned APP, in view of the aforesaid facts, has

strongly opposed the bail applications and submitted that there

are allegations of theft of the articles lying in the shed located at

disputed property and stolen property is yet to be recovered and

for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

necessary.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

investigation record. It appears that petitioners are trying to

confuse the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

made submissions in respect of possession of the petitioners

relating to property located in Khasra No.70/1/1, Mangol Pur

Kalan, which is distinct from the property owned by the

complainant located in Khasra No.70/1/2, which is subject-matter

of FIR. As per the register of revenue authority also, the property

which is subject-matter of the FIR is situated in Khasra No.70/1/2.

There are serious allegations of encroaching upon the property of

complainant forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2 and theft against

the petitioners. Stolen property is yet to be recovered, for which

custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary. In view of the

above, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory

bail. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed as

observation on merits of the case.

6. Applications are dismissed.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE MARCH 22, 2011 ks