Pritam Singh Bhatti vs The State
2015 Latest Caselaw 7805 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   BAIL APPLN. 1990/2015
                                 Date of Decision : October 12th, 2015
    PRITAM SINGH BHATTI                                      ..... Petitioner
                        Through:       Mr.Pawan Sharma, Adv.

                        versus

    THE STATE                                           ..... Respondent
                        Through:       Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State.


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

    P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1908 for the grant of regular bail in FIR No.112/2014, Police Station

Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,

471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the FIR of the present case was

registered on the directions of this Court in CS(OS) 1350/1995, filed

by the plaintiff/complainant Smt. Gurnam Kaur. In the said suit, it

was contended by the plaintiff that she was the widow of late Sh.

Sajjan Singh who expired on 18.04.1972. Late Sh. Sajjan Singh was

the absolute owner of the suit property. In August, 1991, the

petitioner/accused impersonated somebody as Sajjan Singh and got

the sale deed executed in his favour. This Court decreed the said suit

vide order dated 10.04.2015 in favour of the plaintiff while observing

that the Sale Deeds dated 05.08.1991 were forged. Vide order dated

04.08.2014, an FIR was ordered to be registered.

3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned APP for the State were heard.

4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused are that the petitioner was arrested on 30.04.2015

and since then he is in custody. The charge sheet has already been

filed by the Investigating Officer. The bail application filed before

the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed vide order dated

20.08.2015. It is further argued that there is no incriminating material

against the petitioner. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 85

years and is completely bed ridden. The petitioner is being produced

before the Trial Court on a wheel chair. The petitioner is no more

required for further investigation.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has

opposed the bail application on the ground that the old age is not a

criteria to grant the bail. The accused has committed cheating and

forgery of documents while getting the sale deed executed by

producing an impersonator. The complainant is also a senior citizen

and has suffered a lot due to the acts of the accused. The petitioner

kept on changing his addresses and his presence could be secured

only after publication. It is further argued that the petitioner does not

deserve any concession of bail.

6. The record reveals that the FIR of the present case was

registered on the basis of order passed by this Court in the Civil Suit

filed by the complainant. The allegations against the petitioner/

accused are that he committed cheating by committing forgery in the

documents and used the said documents as genuine. As per the

complaint, the petitioner introduced an impersonator as the deceased

husband of the complainant and got the sale deeds executed of the

properties in the name of the deceased husband of the complainant.

The husband of the complainant expired on 18.04.1972, whereas the

sale deeds allegedly executed by the petitioner in 1991. It is matter of

record that alleged forgery in sale deeds have been committed by the

petitioner/accused.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the matter that forgery has

been committed by the petitioner and he also introduced an

impersonator in getting the documents of the properties executed, this

Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to

enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail. The old age and ailment of the

petitioner/accused cannot be a ground to release him on bail in view

of specific allegations against the petitioner that he committed forgery

and gained deceitfully the money, as alleged.

8. The application is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made

clear that the observations made above shall not affect the merits of

the case.

P.S.TEJI, J OCTOBER 12, 2015 dd