Delhi High Court
Bijender Singh @ Raju Parcha vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 August, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.08.2015
BAIL APPLN. 1725/2015 & CRL.M.A. 12226/2015
BIJENDER SINGH @ RAJU PARCHA ..... Applicant
Through: Mr Daviender Hora and Mr Sikandar,
Khan, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr M.S.Oberoi, APP.
SI Ajay Kumar, PS- Burari.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an application under Section 438 read with Section 482
CrPC, 1973 for anticipatory bail in FIR No.441/2014 under Sections
420/468/471/448/511/506/427/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Burari.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the
co-accused, namely, Bhushan Verma has been enlarged on regular bail by
the police themselves and consequently there is no conceivable reason why
he should not be granted a similar protection.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Shreekesh Maurya lodged a
complaint which fructified into registration of the subject FIR. It was alleged
that a property measuring 810 sq.yards out of Khasra No.122/15/12 situated
in village Burari was sold to the complainant by accused H.S.Rawat and the
present applicant. It was claimed by the accused that they had purchased the
said property from one Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg through an agreement to
sell/receipt/GPA/Will dated 23.04.2013. The accused had assured the
complainant that they had purchased the subject property for a consideration
of Rs.80 lacs by way of possession letter, receipt, affidavit and Will. The
principal allegation is that during investigation it was revealed that Sh.
Vinod Kumar Garg the owner of the said property had not sold it to anyone
and was in fact carrying on his business of cable television at the said
location.
4. Mr Oberoi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on
instructions from the IO in the subject FIR, SI Ajay Kumar, Police Station-
Burari, states that despite notices in this behalf the applicant has steadfastly
refused to join investigation. It is further urged on behalf of the prosecution
that the said Bhushan Verma who was released on regular bail by them had
given a complaint to the police station alleging that he had never purchased
the said property from Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg and that he had never sold it
further either to accused H.S.Rawat or the present applicant. The said
Bhushan Verma is further alleged to have stated that the accused including
the applicant took advantage of his old age illness and executed the forged
documents in relation to the subject property by offering him a share of 10%.
5. An earlier application filed on behalf of the present applicant was
dismissed by this court by way of order dated 21.05.2015 only for the reason
that the accused persons were required to give their handwriting and
specimen signatures and would consequently have to make themselves
available for custodial interrogation to unearth the true facts and the forgery
of documents. It is an admitted position that despite the said order the
present applicant has not made himself available to the investigating officer
in the subject FIR and has been evading arrest.
6. In CBI v. Anil Sharma: (1997) 7 SCC 187 and Ranbir Singh Kharab
and Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi): Bail App.No.417/2007 decided on
27.05.2009, it was observed that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more
elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a
favourable order under Section 438 of the Code.
7. In the present case the accused is not only keeping himself beyond the
pale of law but refuses to participate in the investigation into who forged the
documents and the signatures of the owner of the subject land, Sh. Vinod
Kumar Garg on those documents. The present application is without merit
and accordingly dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
AUGUST 24, 2015
mk
