M/S Ganesh Industries vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2758 Del

$~21

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: April 07, 2015

+      CRL.M.C. 1246/2015
       M/S GANESH INDUSTRIES                    ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. C.S. S. Tomar, Advocate

                          versus

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                .....Respondents
                     Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional
                               Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                               State with SI Sudhir Kumar

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.4580/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 1246/2015 Impugned order of 5th August, 2014 grants regular bail to respondent-accused in FIR No.183/2010 under Sections 420/467/468/ 471/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing (North), Delhi while noting that the property in question already stands mutated in the name of respondent-accused and that it appears to be a case of co- accused-Rohtas (who is absconding) having duped respondent-accused.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that

CRL.M.C. 1246/2015 Page 1 respondent-accused was the main accused in forging of documents and the said Rohtas is a fictitious person and the criminal conspiracy has been hatched and therefore, grant of bail to respondent-accused is totally unjustified.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality but the original documents vide which the property had changed hands from co-accused- Jagdish Gupta are not forthcoming.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that the factum of respondent-accused joining investigation is not disputed and it is not the case of respondent-accused that the original documents of property in question executed by co- accused-Jagdish Gupta in favour of co-accused-Rohtas are in possession of respondent-accused.

So far as the observations made in the impugned order of respondent-accused being duped by co-accused-Rohtas is concerned, the same is uncalled for. In any case, any observation made in the impugned order will not be taken as a reflection on the merits of this case at trial.

Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.

                                                           (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                              JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2015
s




CRL.M.C. 1246/2015                                                       Page 2