Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 October, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:23.10.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2045/2018
ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ajay
P.Tushir, Adv., Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP
with SI Raghuvendra Singh, DIU/NE, Delhi.
Mr.Rajat Aneja, Adv. for the complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
23.10.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.206/2016 under Section
420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, P.S.Sonia
Vihar.
2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant was approached
by the petitioner and another co-accused for the purposes of sale of a
particular piece of land, in which the co-accused claimed to have
rights based on an agreement to sell with the original owner.
3. The deal was struck for Rs. 1,70,00,000/- out of which Rs.
34,00,000/- were paid in cash to the co-accused. It is alleged that
petitioner was present at the time when the money was handed over
and was instrumental in the striking of the deal. Subsequently it
transpired that the co-accused did not have rights in the property and
the document, photocopy of which was alleged to have been shown at
the time of the transaction entered into, was a forged document.
4. Learned APP submits that the petitioner has adopted similar
modus operandi in two other cases and two other FIRs of identical
nature are registered against the petitioner.
5. Learned APP under instructions from the IO submits that the
original of the document, which is alleged to have been shown to the
complainant and executed by the original owner in favour of the co
accused, has not been furnished to the IO and as such could not be
sent for forensic examination and no opinion can be expressed on the
genuineness or otherwise of said document.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that even as per the
averments in the FIR no money has been paid to the petitioner and
petitioner is even not shown to be a witness to the alleged document
executed by the co accused in favour of the complainant. He further
submits that the petitioner has already been granted bail in two other
cases wherein also the petitioner was falsely implicated.
7. Investigation is complete, charge sheet has already been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner
has been in judicial custody since 10.02.2016. Subject FIR was
registered on 07.06.2016 and technically the petitioner should have
been taken in formal custody in this FIR also, however, the petitioner
was formally taken in custody in this FIR on 13.01.2017 and
calculated from 13.01.2017 petitioner has already served incarceration
for over one year and nine months.
9. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the view that
petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail.
10. Accordingly, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court, petitioner shall be released on bail if not required in
any other case. Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice
the trial or the prosecution witness. Petitioner shall not leave the
country without permission of the Trial Court.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
OCTOBER 23, 2018/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
