Vijay Thakur vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2015 Latest Caselaw 9296 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Judgment delivered on : December 14, 2015
+     BAIL APPLN. 79/2013
      VIJAY THAKUR
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
                                      with Ms. Astha Sharma, Mr. Atul
                                      Guglani, Advocates


                          versus

      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
                                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through:    Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional
                                      Public Prosecutor for the State
                                      Mr. Aakal Bhushan, Mr. Rahul
                                      Shukla, Mr. Akash Jandial, Advocates
                                      for complainant

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant bail application under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking bail in a

case registered under FIR No. 197/2012, under Sections 466, 467,

468, 448, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mehrauli,

Delhi.

2. The present case is registered on the complaint of Shri Balwan

Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who purchased the

first floor of property No.D-200, Defence Colony, New Delhi,

whereas the ground floor portion was purchased by the petitioner. It is

alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon the common area by

raising bamboo fencing and also a gate duly installed at opening,

which was for the use and occupation of all the occupants of the

complex. Suspicion of manipulations in the sale deed of petitioner -

Vijay Thakur by inserting two sheets of the site plans and three sheets

of schedule of property between page Nos. 17 and 18 and pasting of

pages in paste file, and using the same ink on all papers including the

manipulated pages, have been raised against the petitioner.

3. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor appears

on behalf of the State and vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner, on the ground that there is report of FSL Rohini,

which has observed some discrepancies and gave opinion that two

sheets of site plans and three sheet of schedule of property would have

been inserted subsequently and may not be a part of the original sale

deed.

4. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner has already joined the investigation since 16th

January 2013 and also provided the original sale deed and other

documents, as desired by the Investigating Officer of this case and has

cooperated in the investigation of the case. Even the dispute between

the parties is of civil nature and nature and gravity of the allegations

against the petitioner do not warrant the arrest of the petitioner. It is

further averred that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and

the petitioner is an income tax payee, has no criminal antecedents and

there is no likelihood that the petitioner would abscond as he has deep

roots in society.

5. I have heard the submissions and counter submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the status

report filed on behalf of the State and the material placed on record.

6. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is of

civil nature and civil litigation between the parties is also pending

before this Court, and the fact that the petitioner has joined and

cooperated in the investigation of the case and also submitted the

documents as desired with the Investigating Officer and that the

petitioner has not misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted

by this Court on 16th January 2013 to him. This Court is inclined to

confirm the interim protection to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

order dated 16th January 2013 passed by this Court is made absolute

and it is hereby ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner -

Vijay Thakur, he be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to conditions that the

petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

required; shall not tamper with the evidence; shall not influence the

prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the Court.

7. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application stands

disposed of.

8. Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE DECEMBER 14, 2015 pkb