Delhi High Court
Kunjan Saini & Anr vs State Of Nct Delhi on 22 September, 2015
#14-16 (Common Order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22nd September, 2015
+ BAIL APPLICATION 1318/2015 and Crl. MA 9601-9602/2015
KUNJAN SAINI & ANR ..... Applicants
Through Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State
SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S. Sunlight Colony
Mr. Jitto Joseph for Mr. M.R. Sisodia,
Advocate for the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 1444/2015
SHAKUNTALA SAINI ..... Applicant
Through Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State
SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S. Sunlight Colony
Mr. Jitto Joseph for Mr. M.R. Sisodia,
Advocate for the complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 1588/2015
RAJNI SAINI .....Applicant
Through Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP for the State
SI Sanjay Kumar, P.S. Sunlight Colony
Mr. Jitto Joseph for Mr. M.R. Sisodia,
Advocate for the complainant
Bail Application 1318/2015 and connected matters Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present are the applications under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of pre-arrest bail for all of the four
applicants herein namely Kunjan Saini, Tarun Saini, Shakuntala Saini and
Rajni Saini in the subject FIR No. 397/2015 under Sections
120B/168/323/34/352/384/389/447/506 IPC registered at Police Station-
Sunlight Colony, Delhi.
2. Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants states that no offences under the provisions of Section 389 IPC are
made out and the other sections under which the subject FIR has been
registered are bailable offences. Learned counsel further states that the
complainant herein Mr. Gobind Vashisht is himself a criminal. Learned
counsel would urge that since the order passed by this Court granting interim
protection to the applicants, they have joined investigation. However,
learned counsel admits that no recovery has been made at the instance of the
applicants.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Mr. Gobind
Vashisht is the sole and exclusive owner of the property bearing No. 148,
Harinagar Ashram, New Delhi. The said property is an ancestral property
and was in a dilapidated condition, therefore, the complainant was keen to
carry out maintenance and repair work. The applicants prevented him from
carrying out repair work on the said property and threatened him that they
would report the matter to the police and file a false case against the
complainant.
4. It is alleged that when the complainant approached the applicant-Rajni
Saini to beseech her not to obstruct the repair work, she agreed to do so only
on the condition that the complainant give her half portion in the said
property or in the alternative, pay them a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs.
5. The applicant-Rajni Saini is also stated to have instituted a civil suit
against the complainant alleging unauthorized construction in the aforesaid
property.
6. Thereafter, the applicant-Rajni Saini approached the complainant once
again and demanded payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in order to persuade her to
withdraw the civil suit instituted by her against the latter. Ms. Rajni Saini is
stated to have received part payment in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The video
recording of the said transaction, as allegedly recorded by one Shri
Dharmender Kaushik, R/o House No. 157, Harinagar Ashram, New Delhi is
on record.
7. It is observed that the statement of Shri Dharmender Kaushik, the
witness for the prosecution in the subject FIR has been recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A perusal of the said
statement reveals that he recorded the conversation between Mohan, Jaidev
and the applicants- Rajni Saini, Tarun Saini and Kunjan Saini regarding the
demand of money of Rs. 25 lakhs or portion of the land i.e. 18-20 yards by
the applicants. The witness further deposed that the applicant-Kunjan Saini
received Rs. 2 lakhs from the complainant in his presence.
8. During the course of investigation, public persons in the locality were
examined and they have expressed in writing that the applicants herein
instituted various suits against many persons with a view to extort money
from the latter. The statements of the following persons have been recorded
in this behalf:-
1. Govind Vashisht S/o Late Shri D.D. Sharma R/o House
no. 148, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi (Complainant)
2. Dharmender Kaushik S/o Late Shri Virender Kaushik
R/o House No. 157, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi
(witness for Complainant)
3. A. Mohan Dass S/o Sh. K. Arumugham R/o House No.
659, Sunlight Colony part-2, New Delhi (witness for
Complainant)
4. Jaidev Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ramanand Patwari, R/o
House No. 128, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi (witness
for Complainant)
5. Bhram Dat Sharma S/o Late Shri Shrichand Sharma, R/o
House No. 132, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi (witness
for Complainant)
6. Om Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Maidhan Dass Gupta, R/o
House No. 9399, Gali No. 9, Multan Dhanda, Paharganj,
New Delhi. (He stated that accused Shakuntla Saini filed
civil suit against him and extorted Rs. 4 lakh)
7. Rajkumar Kaushik S/o Shri B.D. Kaushik, R/o House
No. 180A, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi (he complained
against accused Shakuntla Saini & others for demanding
money at the time for selling his property so buyers
withdraw hand for purchasing the property)
9. It is therefore of no avail to the applicants to urge that they have joined
investigation. They are prima facie guilty of the commission of an offence
under the provision of Section 389 IPC.
10. In view of the gravity of the offence and prima facie case against the
applicants, I do not think this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to all the
four applicants herein.
11. The present bail applications are hereby dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
sd
