Manish Tahim vs State & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2151 Del

$~23
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    DECIDED ON : 17th MARCH, 2016


+                  BAIL APPLN. No.1021/2015


       MANISH TAHIM                                       ..... Petitioner
                          Through     Mr. Kunal Madan, Advocate


                          VERSUS

       STATE & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                          Through     Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.
                                      SI Pritam Singh, Police Station
                                      Connaught Place.
                                      Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocate for
                                      respondent No. 2.


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

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner-Manish Tahim seeks anticipatory bail under Section

438 Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 123/2015 under Section 419/420/468/471/120B

IPC registered at Police Station Connaught Place. The bail application is

contested by the State and the respondent No. 2/complainant.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned

counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. Petitioner's counsel

urged that the shop/stall bearing No. 2, NDMC Market, Connaught Place,

Delhi was originally allotted to one late Om Prakash Tahim and Sh. Sadhu

Ram by NDMC. Subsequently, Sadhu Ram transferred his share in the shop

in favour of Om Prakash Tahim through a will. Later on, Om Prakash Tahim

transferred the shop in favour of Satish Kumar who was running a tailoring

shop in the name and style of Prominent Tailors with his real brother

Ravinder Kumar Tahim. Ravinder Kumar Tahim expired on 17.02.1996

and the petitioner stepped into the shoes of his father and an informal

partnership came into existence between him and Satish Kumar. Thereafter,

Satish Kumar went to U.S. The shop was being managed by him since then.

He further contended that in 2010, he and Satish Kumar entered into a

formal partnership deed dated 31.12.2010 which was later on dissolved vide

dissolution deed dated 23.05.2011. These deeds were signed by Satish

Kumar at U.S. It is further contended that the NDMC had initiated

proceedings against him for forgery, however, after being satisfied with the

documents furnished by him, NDMC dropped the proceedings of forgery

vide order dated 29.03.2011. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition

before this Court where he was granted stay for the subject suit property.

The said matter is still pending. The instant FIR is an outcome of the dispute

over family property. The petitioner and the complainant are first cousins.

The dispute between the parties is primarily a civil dispute. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and complainant's counsel have opposed the

bail contending that the petitioner has forged various documents to get the

shop transferred in his name.

3. The FIR in question was lodged on the directions of the Learned

Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C on 08.05.2015. The

complainant Priyanka Sawhney alleged that her father Satish Kumar was

allottee of the Stall No. 2, NDMC Market, Connaught Place which was

sanctioned and regularized in his name in the year 1979. On 15.05.1986

divorce took place between her parents in HMA Case No. 77/1986. His

father moved to USA and till death in 2012, he remained there. He never

married thereafter. The petitioner is the complainant's cousin. In the

NDMC, he applied for renewal of the license in his name and filed certain

forged documents. The petitioner claimed that he was the only legal heir of

Satish Kumar and falsely represented that Satish Kumar was unmarried.

4. Status report reveals that enquiries were made from NDMC and it

transpired that the petitioner had applied for transfer of the stall in his name.

He had filed partnership deed, dissolution deed, affidavits and application in

this regard before the NDMC purportedly contending Satish Kumar's

signatures thereon. It has come on record that these documents were never

signed by Satish Kumar as he never visited Delhi during the relevant period.

Photocopy of these documents have been placed on record and the original

are in the police file. These documents were attested by Notary Public. The

petitioner relied upon the documents to get the shop in question transferred

and regularised in his name. Specific enquiry was made from the learned

counsel for the petitioner as to how signatures of the deceased Satish Kumar

appeared on these documents when he had never visited India during the

said dates and how the Notary Public had attested the same. The

Investigating Officer has informed that in their statements recorded, the

attesting witnesses have informed that when they put their signatures over

these documents, these were already having the signatures of Satish Kumar

thereon. Apparently, Satish Kumar did not sign these documents in their

presence. The petitioner's counsel had no answer to it.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and also to unearth, the

conspiracy and the role of the Notary Public and the attesting witnesses, I

am of the view that it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted

to the petitioner. The bail application is dismissed.

6. Observations in the order shall have no impact on the merits of the

case.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 17, 2016 rs