Geeta vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
2018 Latest Caselaw 4176 Del

$~11
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Decided on:- 20th July, 2018

+       BAIL APPLN. 2103/2017
        GEETA                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate

                            versus

    THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
                  State with SI Naresh Kumar, PS Shahbad
                  Dairy
                  Mr. N.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the
                  complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

                        ORDER (ORAL)

1. The involvement of the petitioner has come up during investigation into FIR no.117/14 of police station Shahbad Dairy involving offences punishable under Section 420 IPC regarding sale / purchase of plot bearing no.3, admeasuring 531 sq. yds. out of Khasra no.29/15 situated in Village Pansali, Delhi. Rajender Singh, the complainant of the case, claims to have purchased the said plot of land from recorded owners Devender and others. The petitioner herein, it appears, also lays a claim to the said property, she placing reliance on documents including general power of attorney (GPA). The Investigation, thus far carried out, indicates the said GPA is a forged

and fabricated document. The investigation statedly further shows that the claim of the petitioner as to the title of the said property on the basis of an agreement to sell purportedly executed by her husband Prem Bhardwaj is on the strength of the said forged GPA. In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted at this stage of the investigative process that the case set out in the FIR against the petitioner is wholly unfounded.

2. In the given facts and circumstances, where the investigating officer reports that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the investigation and thereby abusing the protection against arrest granted by order dated 23.10.2017, no case is made out for anticipatory bail to be granted.

3. The petition is dismissed.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 20, 2018 yg