Monika Singh vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 1849 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   BAIL APPL. No.2492/2009

                                        Date of Decision : 19.03.2012

MONIKA SINGH                                           ...... Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Satish Tamta, Adv.

                                       Versus

STATE                                            ......      Respondent
                                       Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP

BAIL APPL. No. 238/2011


MONIKA SINGH                                           ...... Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Satish Tamta, Adv.

                                       Versus

STATE                                            ......      Respondent
                                       Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. These are two anticipatory bail applications filed by the

petitioner in respect of two different FIRs lodged by the

father and the son against the present petitioner.

2. The bail application no. 2492/2009 is a case registered

by Dr. Rupinder Singh, S/o Waryam Singh, R/o Waryam

Singh Hospital, Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

on 01.10.2009. The allegations made in the FIR no.

271/2009, u/S 419/420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC,

registered by P.S. Kotwali, Delhi are that Dr. Rupinder

Singh along his wife Monika Singh was residing at 128-A,

Lok Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi and he was informed by

Manager, Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi

on 27.12.2008 on his mobile phone no. 09812005900

that there was a housing loan of Rs.14.25 lakhs in the

name of Ms. Monika Singh and himself as a co-borrower

and the payments of the loan had been defaulted and the

same were to be paid immediately. On 29.12.2008, after

an enquiry by the Vigilance Branch, a case was

registered against the present petitioner. During the

investigation, it was revealed that the name and the

address of the co-applicant Rupinder Singh were correct

but photograph and occupation as mentioned in loan

application was not that of the complainant. It was

further alleged that the petitioner had earlier forged

General Power of Attorney and some other documents in

respect of flat bearing no. 7152, Block B-10, Vasant

Kunj, New Delhi. In sum and substance, the

complainant had made allegations of cheating, forging

the documents, and using the forged documents as

genuine and criminal conspiracy against the present

petitioner along with the other persons who are

purported to have impersonated as the co-owner of the

property and taken loan.

3. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.12.2009.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved, approached the High

Court by filing the present bail application and the

following order was passed on the first date in the bail

application on 23.12.2009:

"Notice.

Counsel for the State accepts notice.

State report has been filed. The complainant is Dr.

Rupinder Singh, the husband of the petitioner. Allegations are that the petitioner had taken a house loan of Rs.14.24 lacs in her own name as also in the name of a co-borrower i.e. the complainant husband and defaults have been made in the said payment; the document in support of the loan application of the complainant were found to be fake and forged in the course of investigation. It is pointed out by counsel for petitioner that the loan amount has since been paid. This factum is admitted by learned APP under instructions of the Investigating Officer.

The petitioner undertakes to join the investigation. He is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned and not to tamper with the evidence; he will fully cooperate with the investigation. Till then no arrest.

Renotify for 10.03.2011.

Dasti.

Sd/-

INDERMEET KAUR. J"

4. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show two things.

First, so far as the allegation of non-payment of loan of

Rs.14.25 lakhs purported to have been borrowed by the

present petitioner and the complainant allegedly as a co-

borrower is concerned that stood paid to the bank. The

petitioner was directed to join the investigation and

appear before the IO as and when summoned and she

was not to tamper with the evidence and in the

meantime, no arrest. This interim order of no arrest has

continued till date. It has now been urged that as the

interim order has continued for a long time, the bail

order be confirmed.

5. The complainant has vehemently opposed the bail

application. The sum and substance of opposition of the

grant of anticipatory bail from both the sides i.e.

prosecution and the complainant's side has been that the

allegations against the petitioner are very serious in

nature in as much as they are not only of cheating the

bank but also forging the documents and using the

forged documents as genuine by the petitioner for the

purpose of borrowing that money from Allahabad Bank

and representing somebody else whose identity is yet not

known. It was contended that repayment of loan does

not obliterate the offence.

6. The second limb of argument has been that the petitioner

is a habitual cheater and forger, who forged documents.

It is alleged that she has also been involved in number of

other cases, and therefore, she is not entitled to the

grant of anticipatory bail. In this regard, the prosecution

has drawn the attention of the Court to an FIR No.

625/2003, under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC, registered

by P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with regard to the flat in

question to which a reference was made in the present

case also. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the said FIR was quashed on being

compromised by the Apex Court in Crl. A. No.

1286/2009. The copy of the order has been placed on

file.

7. During the course of submissions, the learned APP has

also pointed out that the petitioner had been declared

proclaimed offender in a case under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act by Chandigarh Court which

was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

stating that the petitioner was not served, and therefore,

she was declared a proclaimed offender and in any case

she has put in appearance in the Trial Court and it has

granted her bail. It is further alleged that the FIR has

been registered at the instance of the complainant in the

instant case.

8. The third submission, which has been made by the

learned APP is that the petitioner has not been joining

the investigation and whenever she has joined the

investigation, she has not given the correct information

to the IO in order to save her skin. Therefore, this also

disentitles the petitioner to the grant of anticipatory bail.

9. So far as the bail application bearing Bail Appl.

No.238/2011 is concerned, this was also a case in

respect of FIR No. 113/2010, under Section

420/468/471/120B IPC, registered by P.S. Rani Bagh,

Delhi. This FIR had been lodged by Dr. Waryam Singh,

father of Dr. Rupinder Singh wherein the allegations have

been made against the petitioner that she has forged the

documents of property bearing no. G-1219-A, Chitranjan

Park, New Delhi belonging to Dr. Waryam Singh and

Sumitra Guha which was duly registered in their name by

the conveyance deed dated 16.11.2004 by the L&DO and

the same is registered by Sub-Registrar, Delhi on

23.11.2004. It has been alleged that after forging the

documents in respect of the aforesaid property, the

petitioner had conspired with Prem Singh, Ramesh

Chand, Sanjay, Ashok Kumar, UDC in the office of L&DO,

Attar Singh, LAO, DDA forged and fabricated a power of

attorney dated 04.09.1998 and got prepared a

conveyance deed dated 11.05.2004 in her own name in

respect of the aforesaid property. Thereafter, it has

been alleged that the said forged documents were

presented as genuine documents to establish her

ownership with the State Bank of India, Shakur Basti,

Rani Bagh, Delhi and she was able to secure a medium

term loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 08.06.2005 by

mortgaging the said property. Accordingly, the case

under Section 420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC was

registered.

10. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge on 19.02.2011 by

observing that the petitioner is involved in three other

similar cases, and therefore, the grant of anticipatory bail

was refused.

11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred the present

bail application, which the Court was pleased to refer the

matter to Meditation Cell vide order dated 24.02.2011

because the Court felt that there is some matrimonial

discord between Dr. Rupinder Singh and Ms. Monika

Singh as they had a live in relationship and the matter

could be settled amicably. In the meantime, the

petitioner was protected. This direction has continued

from time to time till date, although, Mediation did not

bring about any fruitful result.

12. The matter has been heard on different dates and this is

one of such rare cases where there has been great deal

of opposition from the side of the complainant as well as

the learned Prosecutor to grant the anticipatory bail.

Normally, I have not seen such a great opposition by the

learned APP, as has been done in the present case. In

case a person has committed a crime, he must meet the

consequences but in the instant case, it seems that as

there was a live in relationship between the petitioner

and Dr. Rupinder Singh and as they have fallen apart

each one of them wants to score a point over the other.

13. In the second bail application the grounds for opposition

of bail is almost the same, therefore, I do not want to

repeat the same.

14. So far as the learned counsel for the petitioner is

concerned, her case has been that she had live-in

relationship with Dr. Rupinder Singh which also resulted

in a birth of a son to the parties. The son is presently

with the petitioner. The petitioner was a divorcee and

from the previous marriage, she has a daughter. It is

the case of the petitioner as she was a divorcee, she was

very depressed and lonely. It is at that point of time that

her father was taken ill and he was being treated at the

hospital being run by the complainant and his father

Waryam Singh when she came in contact with Dr.

Rupinder Singh. It has been stated that Dr. Rupinder

Singh was also running into rough weather so far as his

marriage is concerned, and in order to find solace and

peace, he started paying visits to the petitioner and

showed that he had soft corner for her. They came

nearer to each other and their friendship blossomed into

a live-in relationship. During this relationship, the

petitioner alleges that she got pregnant and Dr. Rupinder

Singh wanted the pregnancy to be terminated for fear of

social stigma for which she did not accede to and she

gave birth to the male child. During the pregnancy, she

came to Delhi where she came to stay at different places

in Pitampura, etc. and Dr. Rupinder Singh visited her

towards the weekend in order to give her financial help.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was helped by

him. Whatever papers for loan were signed by her were

allegedly brought by Dr. Rupinder Singh and she would

only sign the same. She denied that she had committed

any offence. It has been alleged by the petitioner that

the dispute is essentially between the petitioner and Dr.

Rupinder Singh, which is a matrimonial dispute for which

a complaint has been lodged by her in the Chandigarh

Court and it is about the custody of the male child, which

pleas have been refuted by the Doctor in writing stating

that no details have been given, therefore, this is a false

plea.

15. No doubt, the offence of cheating, forging documents and

using forged documents as genuine are essentially very

serious in nature, but the severity of the charge or the

nature of offence is determined by the sentence which it

carries. The offence under Section 420 IPC carries a

maximum sentence of seven years and is also liable for

fine. The next charge of conspiracy and the allegation

against the petitioner is that she has forged the

signatures and presented somebody else as co-borrower

in the case of Dr. Rupinder Singh and obtained the loan

which admittedly stands paid. The offence of conspiracy

and forging a document and using the same as genuine,

will also carry almost maximum of same punishment.

16. So far as Dr. Waryam Singh is concerned, the petitioner

is alleged to have forged the signatures of Dr. Waryam

Singh or somebody else and shown herself as the owner

of the property. The bail application has been opposed

on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner is not joining the

investigation. Secondly, the petitioner is not cooperating

with the IO and revealing the identity of the person who

had represented as the co-borrower.

17. I do not agree with the learned APP that the offence

against the petitioner can be established only if she is

taken for custodial interrogation. Let's assume that she is

not permitted to be custodially interrogated, even then, if

she has forged the signatures of Dr. Rupinder Singh, this

can be established by obtaining the signatures of Dr.

Rupinder Singh and comparing the same with the

questioned document. That in itself would clearly

establish that Dr. Rupinder Singh is not a co-borrower,

therefore, this bogie of custodial interrogation or the

petitioner not joining the investigation does not convince

me as the real reason for opposing the bail of the

petitioner by the prosecution. Similarly, in the case of

Dr. Waryam Singh, the allegation is that the petitioner

has taken a loan by forging the documents and

presenting herself as the owner of the property bearing

no. G-1219-A, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and this can

be established by subjecting the petitioner to simple

interrogation. This is on account of the fact that if the

said property is registered in the name of Dr.Waryam

Singh, all that needs to be established from the Sub

Registrar record is as to whether the loan documents and

the other documents are signed by Dr.Waryan Singh or

not. Therefore, emphasis which is sought to be placed on

the custodial interrogation by both the parties, in my

opinion, is totally misconceived. At the back of this, is

essentially, a sense of vendetta, which seems to have

been adopted by the complainants only to ensure that

the petitioner be sent behind the bars. No doubt,

credentials of the petitioner also do not seem to be very

clean in as much as she is facing trial in a case under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or she was

an accused in another FIR of cheating which ultimately

ended in a compromise. But as she is a women and in

terms of proviso to Section 437 Cr. P.C., she is not

alleged to have committed an offence which carries a

punishment of life imprisonment. I intend to give her the

benefit of doubt, at this stage, when the cases are still at

the investigating stage.

18. I have also gone through the police files and I am at a

loss to understand what type of investigating officer is

conducting the investigation which was in the form of

questions and answers, and subsequently, the accused

was made to sign the same. That obtaining a signature

of the accused on any kind of custodial or non-custodial

interrogation, in my considered opinion, is impermissible

as it is being done by the police in the instant case. In

this regard even the witnesses whose statements are

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be made to

sign the same much less the accused. So far as the first

parameter with regard to the seriousness of the

allegation is concerned, I am of the view that no doubt

there is seriousness of the allegation qua the petitioner

but they are not so serious as envisaged under Section

437 Cr. P.C. to carry a sentence of life which entails

denial of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. More so

when the Supreme Court has construed the said

provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C.very liberally in the case

titled Siddharam Satlingappa Metre vs.State of

Maharashra (2011) 1 SCC 694. Therefore, I feel that

the seriousness of the allegations is not a ground to deny

the bail to the petitioner in the instant case.

19. The second consideration which is the non-cooperation of

the petitioner/accused with the investigating agency, that

is also, I feel, a bogie which has been set up to deny the

bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has admittedly

been on bail in one case from the year 2009 and in the

other case for more than a year and denying the said

anticipatory bail now on the specious ground that the

petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation would

only be inappropriate.

20 The other consideration for grant of bail is that as to

whether she will flee from the processes of law or

whether she will tamper with the evidence. There has

been no allegation from the prosecution that she will flee

from the processes of law or she will tamper with the

evidence. I also do not feel that she will flee from the

processes of law as she has a fixed place of residence

and also has two children whom she has to take care of.

So far as the tampering with the evidence is concerned,

obviously the complainant in both the cases are beyond

approach and rest of the evidence is in the nature of

documents which can hardly be tampered with as the

same are not in her possession.

21. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I feel that

it is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be

enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest.

Accordingly, in the event of her arrest, the petitioner

shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing her a personal

bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the

like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned,

in both the FIRs bearing no. 271/2009, under Section

419/420/465/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered by P.S.

Kotwali, Delhi and the FIR No.113/2010, under Section

420/468/471/120B IPC, registered by P.S. Rani Bagh,

Delhi. This shall be subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall join the investigation;

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the National Capital

Region of Delhi without the permission of the Court;

(iii) The petitioner shall not change her place of

residence without the prior permission of this court;

(iv) The petitioner shall also make her mobile number

available with the SHO concerned within whose

jurisdiction she is residing:

(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or

create any conditions which are not conducive to

the fair investigation.

22. The petitions are accordingly, disposed of.

V.K. SHALI, J

March 19th, 2012 KP