Beeram Singh Rajput vs The State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9101 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 07th December, 2015

BAIL APPLN. 2652/2015

BEERAM SINGH RAJPUT                                             ..... Applicant


                          Through:     Mr Girish Kumar Sharma, Advocate.


                          versus

THE STATE                                                     ..... Respondent

                          Through:     Ms Radhika Kolluru, APP.

                                       Mr Manoj Taneja and Mr Ankur
                                       Singhal, Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL


SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)


CRL.M.A. 17804/2015 (Exemption)

Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

BAIL APPLN. 2652/2015

1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on behalf of the applicant seeking pre-

arrest bail in FIR No.2023/2015 registered at Police Station- Mangol Puri,

Delhi, under Sections 419/420/466/467/468/471/472/474/120B/34 IPC.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would urge that

Koshlender Pandey, the co-accused has been granted interim protection till

the 19.12.2015 by the trial court subject to his joining investigation. Counsel

would then urge that by way of order dated 10.11.2015 three other co-

accused, namely, Kuldeep Khare, Satish Makode and Kapil Sharma have

also been granted interim bail consequent upon a compromise arrived at

between the complainant and the said accused. It is contended that in terms

of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties some payment

has been made by the co-accused to the complainant although remaining

payment is yet to be made. In other words, the applicant seeks parity since

the co-accused have been granted interim protection and the compromise

entered into between the parties ought to enure to his benefit as well.

Lastly, it is urged that the applicant herein has instituted a civil suit against

the complainant and other party defendants.

3. The trial court did not find favour with the submissions made on

behalf of the applicant and rejected his application for pre-arrest bail.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that along with the co-accused, the

applicant approached the complainant in the subject FIR and offered to sell

him 110 acres of land for a total consideration of Rs.3.44 crores and received

money in cash as well as by cheque and electronic transfer in this behalf.

5. It was the assertion of the applicant and the other co-accused that the

owners of the subject land were willing to sell to the complainant and that

their title to the subject land had been verified by the applicant. 21 sale deeds

were executed by the applicant and other co-accused before the concerned

Sub-Registrar on 28.01.2015.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was present at the

time of the execution of the sale deeds and investigation has revealed that the

same bear fake stamps of Sub-Registrar; and the purported owners of the

subject land who executed the said sale deeds were impersonated by others

at the instance of the applicant. It is further alleged that at the instance of the

applicant some unknown persons impersonated the Sub-Registrar as well.

Lastly, it is urged on behalf of the prosecution that the co-accused Kuldeep

Khare and Satish Makode have revealed during police custody that it was the

present applicant who arranged all the persons who impersonated as Sub-

Registrar and the farmers who were purported to be the owners of the subject

land. It is urged that the investigation has revealed that the applicant in fact

received payments from the co-accused who are stated to be Directors of

Pure Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. in addition to the cash received by him from the

complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant be not granted pre-

arrest bail.

7. In the present case the submission made on behalf of the applicant that

a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant is not

tenable inasmuch as the said compromise agreement is not admittedly

coupled with any consideration.

8. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is warranted, inasmuch as,

it has to be ascertained from him as to who were the individuals who

impersonated the Sub-Registrar as well as the owners of the subject land,

who are farmers and villagers. Therefore, the impersonators have to be

identified and arrested. The fake stamps allegedly utilized at the time of the

execution of the sale deeds have also to be recovered from the applicant. It

has also been revealed from the investigation that two of the farmers who are

recorded owners of a part of the subject land were pre-deceased in relation to

the date of the execution of the sale deed pertaining to their land. The

argument of parity does not come to the aid of the applicant, inasmuch as,

the co-accused were earlier taken in police remand and questioned.

9. In view of the foregoing it is evident that the charges levelled against

the present applicant are serious.

10. It is trite to say that custodial investigation is qualitatively more

elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a

favourable order under Section 438 CrPC.

11. It is also noticed that despite service of notice under Section 160

CrPC, the applicant has not made himself available for questioning to the

police.

12. Consequently, in my view this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest

bail to the applicant and his application is hereby dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 07, 2015 mk