Mohd. Shah Alam vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 2357 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Reserved on: 16th May, 2013
%                                           Date of Decision: 20th May, 2013

+     BAIL APPLN. 811/2013
      MOHD. SHAH ALAM                                      ..... Petitioner
                      Through:           Mr. Chander M. Maini, Advocate.
               versus

     STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)               ..... Respondent
                    Through:  Ms Jasbir Kaur, APP with ASI
                              Satya Vir, PS Govind Puri.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

                                JUDGMENT

R.V. EASWAR, J.:

1. This is an application filed by Mohd. Shah Alam under section 438 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.139/2013, P.S. Govind Puri

registered under sections 323/ 380/ 448/ 427/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The lower court has rejected the bail application by order dated 29.04.2013.

2. The complainant is one Smt. Najma, wife of Mohd. Iqbal, residing in

TA-185, Gali No.3, TKD Extension, New Delhi. According to the FIR, she

was residing in the above address along with her family for the past 14 years

as the tenant. The landlord was one Mohd. Shah Alam. On 05.03.2013, the

landlord, his three brothers of which the present applicant is one, and their

wives entered the residence of the complainant and started beating her and her

children. They also started throwing the household goods out of the house.

These goods were some gold and silver jewellery, some money, documents,

bicycle and other household articles such as TV, fridge, bed, gas cylinder, etc.

During the incident the husband of the complainant was not present in the

house as he had gone to the mosque for prayers. After throwing away the

goods Mohd. Shah Alam locked the doors. On these facts, the complainant

wanted action to be taken against the landlord, his brothers and their wives

and also wanted to get herself medically examined.

3. The police registered the FIR and sent an ASI for on the spot

investigation. The complainant and her children were sent for medical check

up.

4. On coming to know of the registration of the FIR against him, the

present applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the

Sessions Court which was declined. The argument put forward before the

Sessions Court on behalf of the applicant was that there was no allegation in

the complaint that the applicant and the other accused had taken away any of

the articles. The Sessions Court, however, rejected the application. Bail was

granted to the brothers of the present applicant by the Sessions Court on

furnishing a personal bond for `20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the

satisfaction of the SHO concerned. It was made clear that the IO can apply

for search warrants, if required and the accused can also be made to

participate in the TIP even if on bail. The second bail application of the

present applicant was also rejected by the Sessions Court by order dated

29.04.2013.

5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that this is not a case where

any articles are to be recovered since they have not been taken away by the

applicant but were only thrown out of the house, even as per the complaint.

Moreover, it was pointed out that the tenant had been issued with a legal

notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 20.09.2012 and

irked by this the tenant is making false allegations against the applicant. It is

also pointed out that the wife of the applicant had filed FIR No.140/2013 on

06.03.2013 against an advocate by name Iqbal, who was present in the

tenant's place where Sonam (wife of the applicant) had gone along with her

brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law. According to the complaint of Sonam, the

said advocate told her and the persons accompanying her that he would

himself throw all the articles out of the room and call the police to tell them

that it was the landlord and his brothers and their wives who had done it. The

advocate also tore Sonam's burqa. There was also some violence against her.

The contention before me is that the complaint against the applicant is false

and arises out of the legal notice issued by the applicant in his capacity as

landlord of the property occupied by the tenant.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

7. On a careful consideration of the matter, I get the impression that this

case has a predominantly civil flavour and it appears to me that the root cause

is the legal notice issued by the applicant as landlord of the property occupied

by the complainant. There is no allegation in the complaint that the applicant

has removed the goods from the house of the tenant. The brothers of the

applicant namely Mohd. Alam and Mohd. Akram had been granted bail by the

Sessions Court by order dated 22.04.2013. The Sessions Court has observed

that the IO can apply for search warrants if he wants to take search of the

house of Mohd. Alam and Mohd. Akram. Taking note of these facts, I direct

that in the event of his arrest, the applicant be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety in a like

amount, to the satisfaction of the IO/ SHO concerned. There is no bar on the

IO to apply for search warrants of the house of applicant herein, if he wishes

to do so. There is also no bar on the TIP of the accused. Anticipatory bail is

granted subject to the aforesaid conditions.

8. The application is disposed of as above.

(R.V. EASWAR) JUDGE MAY 20, 2013 hs