Delhi High Court
Rohit Shokeen vs State on 2 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and Order: February 02, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 205/2017
ROHIT SHOKEEN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Raj
Karan Sharma, Mr. N.S. Yadav,
Mr.Inderpreet Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub-
Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Police
Station Begampur, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
P.S.TEJI, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482
of Cr. P.C., the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case
registered vide FIR No.0799/2016 under Section 448/420/468/471 of
IPC, at Police Station Begaum Pur, Delhi.
2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Ms. Usha
Gupta, according to which, she had purchased a Plot 56-56A, Khasra
No.38/16, Block R, Rama Vihar, Delhi measuring 308 sq. yds on
28.06.2007. She had taken the possession of the plot and also
constructed the boundary and a room. She locked the room whose
keys are with her. She used to visit the plot from time to time but in
December 2014, when she visited her plot she found that the lock of
the room was broken and an old lady with her family was living in the
room. On asking, she said that she was living here on someone's
instructions. The incident was reported to the A.S.P. Sultanpuri, Delhi
on 05.12.2014. Later on, during investigation it revealed that one
Dhirender has forged the documents, on the basis of which he filed a
case No.79/2015 against her and her husband, which was dismissed on
13.08.2015 by the court of Civil Judge, Rohini, Delhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no
role attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. He has not been named in
the FIR. It is further contended that the incident of trespass had come
to the knowledge of the complainant in December 2014, but the FIR
has been lodged only on 08.10.2016 and the inordinate delay in
lodging the FIR is unexplained. On behalf of the petitioner the chain
of transaction regarding sale of the plot has been claimed as a result of
which he is in lawful possession of the plot. Filing of two different
civil suits in respect of the said plot has also been urged on behalf of
the petitioner. However, the fact as to who is the lawful owner of the
plot and whose possession over the plot is legal, is a matter of trial,
which this court is not required to adjudicate while deciding the
present bail petition.
4. On the contrary, Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State contended that the petitioner is in possession
of the property on the basis of forged documents, and he has not yet
joined the investigation. More so, the legality and validity of the
document with regard to the possession of the disputed property is
involved in the present case and the petitioner is required to be
interrogated on these aspects. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is sought for.
5. I have gone through the contentions raised by the petitioner in
the present petition and also heard the submissions of learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also gone through the
contents of FIR.
6. After careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case,
and the contents of the FIR in question, the only fact that is revealed to
this court that the complainant had purchased the land in 2007 and in
December 2014 she came to know that some other lady is in
possession of the property and accordingly criminal complaint
regarding trespass had been lodged in Police Station Begumpur on
08.10.2016. This court further observes that prior to registration of the
FIR in question, there were two civil suits filed in civil court in respect
of the disputed plot. It is not that the complainant has lodged the FIR
immediately after coming to know that somebody else is in possession
of her property. In fact, the FIR was lodged only after the civil suits
were dismissed as withdrawn. More so, no steps were taken to arrest
the petitioner after lodging of the FIR and the orders for warrants were
taken only after rejection of the bail application by learned Additional
Sessions Judge on 13.01.2017.
7. After Sub-Inspector Rajesh Kumar, Investigating Officer of the
case being inquired as to what is required to be recovered from the
petitioner, and it was revealed that nothing is required to be recovered
from the petitioner.
8. From the peculiar facts of the present case, this court observes
that the complainant was in possession of the disputed plot before
December 2014, when the same was tresspassed and the right of title
over the disputed land is involved in the present case, which is purely
civil in nature and can be adjudicated before the civil court. So far as
investigation of the present case is concerned, this court is not inclined
to go into the genuinity of the title deed, especially at the stage of
deciding the application of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in
the case. More so, this court observes that the petitioner has not been
named in the FIR.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, petitioner - Rohit Shokeen is directed to join the investigation as
and when directed by the investigating officer and in the event of
arrest, the petitioner - Rohit Shokeen be released on bail subject to his
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
10. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not to
influence the prosecution witnesses and not to leave the country
without prior permission of the Court concerned.
11. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that
anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on
the merits of the case during trial.
12. With aforesaid directions, the present bail application is
disposed of.
Dasti.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2017
pkb
