Delhi High Court
Mohd. Mustaqueen vs State on 24 December, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.12.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 3184/2019
Mohd. Mustaqueen ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Karan Sachdeva,
Mr. Sanajay Sharma and Ms.
Richa Sharma, Advocates
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr G.M.Farooqui,
APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail
application filed on behalf of the petitioner Mustaqeen under section
438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 166/18 u/s. 380/448/120-B IPC, P.S.
Kotwali.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present FIR. The FIR has been registered on
forged, false and fabricated facts. It is submitted that complainant
Bail Appl. no. 3184/2019 Page no.1 of 5
got registered the present FIR against petitioner to pressurize the
petitioner and his brother to illegally handover the property bearing
no. 1413-1415, Katra Jhajjar Wala, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
The petitioner and his brother being the co-owners of the above said
property have already sold it to Sh. Narottam Kumar Sharma vide
Sale-Deed dated 27.12.2016. Even Sh. Narottam Kumar Sharma has
been arrayed as an accused in the above mentioned FIR. Sh.
Narottam Sharma is in the possession of the above said property and
now the petitioner and his brother have no concern with the
property. A civil suit baring no. 559/2008 qua the said property is
already pending for the last 11 years between the complainant and
the petitioner and complainant is trying to give criminal colour to a
dispute of civil nature. On 07.11.2016 a kalandra u/s. 107/50 CrPC
was made by the police officials of PS Kotwali against the petitioner
and his brother and against the complainant in which statements of
the complainant, as well of the accused and the neighbours of the
property no. 1413-1415, Katra Jhajjar Wala, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006 were recorded.
3. It is submitted that ingredients of Section 420/468/471 IPC
Bail Appl. no. 3184/2019 Page no.2 of 5
are not fulfilled as no wrongful loss has been caused to the
complainant. Neither petitioner nor Sh. Narrotam Kumar Sharma
have forged documents and for this the petitioner had filed a
quashing petition bearing no. WP(Crl) No. 3033/2019 and a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has opined that no forgery has been
committed by the petitioner and thereafter Investigating Officer has
dropped Sections 420/468/471 IPC from the present FIR and now
only Section 380/448/120-B IPC remain against the petitioner. The
petitioner had moved an application u/s 438 CrPC seeking
anticipatory bail before Ld. ASJ, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
However, the said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the
Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2019. The petitioner had
thereafter, approached the co-ordinate Bench of this Court for grant
of anticipatory bail vide bail application no. 1802/2019 but the said
petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner vide order
dated 14.10.2019. However, in view of the order of co-ordinate
bench of the court observing that no case of forgery is prima facie
made out, the petitioner be released on bail in the event of his arrest
and it is further submitted that he is ready to join the investigation as
Bail Appl. no. 3184/2019 Page no.3 of 5
and when required.
4. The anticipatory bail is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State
on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious
in nature. Petitioner is not joining the investigation. The
investigation is still in progress and at initial stage. The petitioner is
not cooperating with the investigating officer. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required. He has, therefore prayed
for dismissal of the bail application.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon following judgments:-
i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, Crl. A.
2050/2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4406/2013).
ii) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab,
MANU/SC/0215/1980
I have gone through the above case law. There is no quarrel
with the proposition of law laid down therein. However, these
authorities are distinguishable on the basis of facts and
circumstances stated therein
6. Perusal of the FIR reveals that complainant Rajiv Vaid had
made a complaint on 16.06.2018 alleging that petitioner along with
other co-accuseds prepared false and forged Sale-Deed dated
Bail Appl. no. 3184/2019 Page no.4 of 5
27.12.2016 in respect of 1st Floor of property bearing no. 1413-
1415, Katra Jhajjar Wala Mandir, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
with terrace and roof rights for cheating and using as genuine the
forged documents to grab the said property and for trespass.
However, it is submitted that Investigating Officer has dropped
Sections 420/468/471 IPC from the present FIR on the direction of
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in quashing petition bearing no.
WP(Crl) No. 3033/2019. However the fact is that the petitioner is
not joining the investigation. Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC
have been initiated against him. The investigation is still in progress
and at initial stage. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
required for the purpose of recovery. In view of the above facts
appearing on record, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out.
The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 24, 2019
Amit
Bail Appl. no. 3184/2019 Page no.5 of 5
