Ajit Singh Yadav vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 2086 Del

*           HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 BAIL APPL. No.413/2012

                                  Date of Decision : 27.3.2012

AJIT SINGH YADAV                             ...... Petitioner
                              Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra, Adv.

                              Versus

STATE                                   ......       Respondent
                              Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is the third application for grant of anticipatory bail

by the petitioner.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at

length. He has contended that the petitioner deserves to

be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the sale agreement on

the basis of which the petitioner is alleged to have

cheated the complainant, Jagdish Maan (deceased) is a

forged and fabricated document.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the

petitioner had already joined the investigation and he

was interrogated by the police. It is contended that

during the course of investigation, the police has not

recorded the statement of the notary public or any of the

witnesses although, the charge sheet against the co-

accused has been filed. It has been contended by him

that the petitioner is not in any way connected with the

chain of documents on the basis of which transaction has

been taken place nor did he authorize or ask anyone to

impersonate as Rajesh Sharma to sell the property. The

petitioner is stated to be 60 years of age and the only

evidence which is alleged to have been gathered against

him, is the purported disclosure statement made by one

Gabbar Singh, who is alleged to be his driver. It has

been contended by the learned counsel that this is

essentially a civil dispute between the parties which is

pending since 2006 which is sought to be given a

criminal colour only with a view to extract money from

the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena Vs.

State of Rajasthan 2010 (1) SCC 684 and Manoj Rana

Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (4) JCC 2448 in

support of his submission.

5. The learned APP has vehemently opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He has also been

assisted by a private counsel representing one of the

complainants against the petitioner. It has been

contended by the learned APP that the case is at the

crucial stage of investigation and the nature of

transaction which has been entered into by Gabbar Singh

at the instance of the petitioner is so complex that the

real facts could not be unearthered unless and until

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is carried out. It

has been further stated that the petitioner is the main

kingpin of the entire transaction. Firstly, he had asked

his driver Gabbar Singh to represent as Rajesh Sharma

and approach the complainant. He took an amount of `12

lacs by agreeing to sell a land measuring 7 bighas and 11

biswas in Village Rajokari, Vasant Kunj, for a total sale

consideration of `1.17 crores and later sold the same

land by different sets of documents through his driver to

one Kishan Lal. It is the case of the prosecution that the

land did not belong to the petitioner or Gabbar Singh at

all. The land was sold by the duo by impersonating

Rajesh Sharma. The actual owner has filed a civil suit

against various persons who are claiming the ownership

of the said property on the basis of the transactions

emanating from the petitioner and his driver.

6. On the basis of these serious allegations of cheating,

forging documents and using the forged documents as

genuine, the learned APP has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP

and gone through the record.

8. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the present

FIR no. 282/2006, u/S 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC

was registered on the basis of a complaint made by one

Jagdish Maan (since deceased) that he came in contact

with the present petitioner in the month of November,

2005 and he introduced one Rajesh Sharma to him who

projected himself to be the owner of a land measuring 7

bighas and 11 biswas in Village Rajokari, Vasant Kunj. It

has been alleged that Gabbar Singh, driver of the present

petitioner who has already been enlarged on regular bail

had represented himself as Rajesh Sharma on asking of

the petitioner and both the petitioner and Rajesh Sharma

@ Gabbar Singh had represented him to be the owner of

the land which was agreed to be sold to Jagdish Maan

vide agreement dated 2.12.2005 for a total consideration

of `1.17 crores out of which, an advance of `12 lacs was

paid by the complainant to Rajesh Sharma at the time of

signing of the agreement.

9. The amount of Rs.12 lacs is alleged to have been shared

by Gabbar Singh posing as Rajesh Sharma and the

present petitioner. After having entered into this

transaction, Gabbar Singh had sold the said land

representing himself as Rajesh Sharma and executed the

sale deed in respect of the same property on 16.1.2006

in favour of a third person. For selling this property to a

third person, a fresh chain of documents were created

and the property was sold to Kishan Pal using the forged

documents and an amount of `24 lacs is alleged to have

been taken from Kishan Pal also.

10. The prosecution has gathered evidence with regard to

the petitioner being the main kingpin of cheating two

different sets of persons and alluring them into a deal in

respect of a property which was not owned by him or his

driver Gabbar Singh @ Rajesh Sharma.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was

registered under Section 419/420/467/468/471/120B

IPC that is for an offence of cheating, forging a document

and using a forged document as genuine.

12. The pleas which have been taken by the learned counsel

for the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail are the old

age of the petitioner and the fact that he has denied any

involvement in the transaction of the land in question

and there is lack of evidence for the same.

13. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that Gabbar Singh was his driver and there is a

definite prima facie evidence against Gabbar Singh who

had represented himself as Rajesh Sharma. Gabbar

Singh is purported to have made his disclosure statement

which has led to the discovery of new facts that it was

the petitioner who had acted as a kingpin and shared the

sale proceeds received from both the transactions,

therefore, it is, prima facie, sufficient ground to lead the

interrogation of the petitioner. Experience has shown

that there is a perceptible difference between an

interrogation, which takes place when a petitioner is

enjoying the protection of Court order and when there is

absence of protection of the court order. This fact has

also been noted by the Supreme Court in case titled

State (CBI) Vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that

custodial interrogation leads to an elucidatory facts which

a person tries to conceal when he has got a bail order in

his pocket.

14. In the instant case, the nature of allegations are so

serious that the police would not be able to reach at the

root of the matter without subjecting the petitioner to

custodial interrogation.

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that he has joined the investigation or that he is

prepared to join the investigation are of no consequence,

keeping in view the allegations,the benefit of anticipatory

bail is not to be given as a matter of course so as to kill

the prosecution case in the womb itself which would

happen in the instant case in the event the petitioner is

granted anticipatory bail. Moreover, the power of grant of

anticipatory bail is concurrent both with the Court of

Sessions and with the High Court.

16. The petitioner having availed of two opportunities of

approaching the Trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail

and having failed to get a favourable order, I feel it is

totally improper for the petitioner to file the present

anticipatory bail application because no new fact has

arisen or brought to my notice which may not have

already received consideration by the Sessions Judge. A

detailed and reasoned order has already been passed on

17.3.2012 by the Court of Sessions.

17. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena's

case (supra), anticipatory bail was given to the accused

where the facts were such that there was a dispute

between the appellant and the complainant regarding

sale of specific flats and the complainant had filed a suit

for specific performance. In the present case, there is no

dispute between the complainant and the present

petitioner in the Civil Court nor has anything been shown

in this regard. On the contrary, it has been stated that

the actual owner Rajesh Sharma has filed a suit against

Kishan Pal who is purported to have purchased the land

in question through Gabbar Singh and the present

petitioner. Therefore, a distinction has to be drawn

between the facts of these two sets of cases. In the

instant case, the very substratum of the complaint is

forgery of a document with regard to the title of property

and using forged document as genuine by persuading the

complainant i.e.Jagdish Maan to enter into the

transaction and take a sum of Rs.12 lacs from him.

Therefore, the facts are totally different and the ratio of

the said case is not applicable to the facts of the present

case.

18. Similarly, in Manoj Rana's case (supra) also, the Court

has observed that a person cannot be detained for

custodial interrogation only on the strength of a

disclosure statement, there must be independent

evidence. In the present case, the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is sought not only on the

basis of the disclosure statement of Gabbar Singh but

there is ample evidence otherwise also which would

warrant his custodial interrogation.

19. I do not find any merit in the present anticipatory bail

application of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is

rejected.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MARCH 27, 2012 RN