Delhi High Court
Sheela Arora vs The State (Govt F Nct Of Delhi) on 16 December, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16th December, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2495/2015
SHEELA ARORA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.M.K.Ghosh, Ms.Tina
Garg and Mr.Rohit Dutta,
Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT F NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for
the State with SI Lalit
Chauhan, PS Roop Ngr,
Delhi in person.
Mr.Mayank Goel and
Mr.Lalruatpuia Saib, Advs
for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR
No.494/2015 registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC against her.
2. The case against the petitioner is that the complainant along with
his parents Mr.Manmohan Singh and Smt.Satpal Kaur had purchased the
property admeasuring 156.38 square meters comprising the ground floor
which falls on the southern ½ portion of premises bearing No.7/3, Roop
Nagar, Delhi for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.50 Crore and sale deed
was executed for an amount of Rs.58.00 Lac only. After purchase of said
property, a lease deed was executed by the complainant and his parents in
favour of son of petitioner namely Ajay Arora, for a monthly rental of
Rs.20,000/-. Shri Ajay Arora failed to pay rent for the period
commencing from March, 2015 upon which repeated efforts were made
by the complainant to contact him. The complainant visited the property,
but none of the family members were available and he had no knowledge
about the whereabouts to contact them. Accordingly, complainant issued
notice terminating tenancy of Shri Ajay Arora, which was not replied to.
Thereafter, complainant made enquiries at the office of Sub Registrar,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby it is revealed that earlier chain of title
documents executed by petitioner and her son were forged one. Further
enquiries from the neighbours on further visit to property in question
revealed that said property had been mortgaged with Bank of Maharashtra
by petitioner and her son and bank officials visited the property in
question and pasted notice in this regard.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
petitioner is aged lady and none of her family members ever sold the
property to complainant at any point of time. The complainant had
advanced a loan to the tune of Rs.58.00 Lac to the son of petitioner early
in the year 2014 and at that time had compelled the petitioner and her
family members to sign blank documents as security arrangement. The
petitioner on the assurance of complainant that it will not be misused and
will be returned as soon as loan amount is repaid, and thus was forced to
sign those document. The entire loan amount along with interest thereon
had been repaid to complainant by the end of March, 2015. However, the
complainant flatly refused to return the signed blank documents and
continued to extort large amount of money from her.
4. He further submits that neither the petitioner nor any of her family
members had ever sold the property in question to complainant. The
electricity and water bills are still in the name of petitioner. Had the
petitioner sold the property, there was no question for her to stay therein.
5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner already joined the
investigation, however no discriminating material recovered from her. He
placed reliance upon the decision dated 01.09.2015 of the Apex Court in
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v State of Gujarat: Crl Appeal Nos.1134-35
of 2015. The Apex Court has held as under:-
"22. It is pertinent to note that while interpreting the
expression "may, if it thinks fit" occurring in Section
438(1) of the Code, the Court pointed out that it gives
discretion to the Court to exercise the power in a
particular case or not, and once such a discretion is
there merely because the accused is charged with a
serious offence may not by itself be the reason to refuse
the grant of anticipatory bail if the circumstances are
otherwise justified. At the same time, it is also the
obligation of the applicant to make out a case for grant
of anticipatory bail. But that would not mean that he has
to make out a "special case". The Court also remarked
that a wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes
care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out
of its intemperate use."
6. The bail application has been opposed by learned Prosecutor for the
State who is also assisted by learned counsel for complainant.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 20.11.2015, the State has filed the status
report whereby it is stated that during course of investigation, it was found
that property in question was mortgaged by son of petitioner with Bank of
Maharashtra for a loan amount of Rs.5.80 Crore and the petitioner and
Rakesh Dhingra are the guarantors in said loan. Son of petitioner
prepared the forged documents of the property in question and accused
Rakesh Dhingra made illegal release deed in favour of his mother i.e.
petitioner herein. On the basis of the illegal release deed, the petitioner
sold the said property to the complainant Mr.Gurmeet Singh for an
amount of Rs.1.50 Crore knowing it fully well that sale deed is illegal as
the property in question has already been mortgaged by her and her son
with Bank of Maharashtra. Thereafter, accused persons again prepared
forged documents of the property in question and mortgaged it to the State
Bank of India for an amount of Rs.1.50 Crore and the petitioner against
stood guarantor in this deal. Thus, the accused persons have cheated the
Bank of Maharashtra for an amount of Rs.5.80 Crore and State Bank of
India for Rs.1.50 Crore in addition to the complainant.
8. There is no denial to the fact that petitioner joined the investigation
only after passing of the directions by this Court. However, she did not
cooperate and not depose true facts. The siphoned and cheated money
which belongs to nationalised bank is to be recovered from petitioner and
other co-accused persons. Therefore, the custody of petitioner is required
at this stage of the case.
9. Keeping in view the allegations against petitioner and the facts of
the case, I am not inclined to allow the instant petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
10. Needless to state that protection granted to petitioner stands
vacated.
11. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Crl. M.(Bail).No.8157/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 16, 2015
M
