Delhi High Court
Sanjay Yadav vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 29 January, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: January 28, 2019
Decided on: January 29, 2019
+ BAIL APPN. 511/2018
SANJAY YADAV ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Puneet Mittal, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Richa Singh and Ms.Vasudha
Bajaj, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
State with Insp.Ramesh Chandra,
DIU, Dwarka Mr.V.K.Shandilya and
Mr.Dhruv Sharma, Advocates for
complainant
Mr.Tanmaya Mehta, Mr.Piyush Singh
and Mr.Akshay Srivastva, Advocates
for the victims
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case
FIR No.653/2014 under Sections 420/467/468/478/120-B IPC registered at
PS Chhawla on the complaint of Dharmender Yadav filed before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of Dharmender Yadav who is also an accused now in the
FIR in question having been arrested are that the petitioner son of Narayan
Singh forged the signatures of complainant's father Late Bharat Lal on a
receipt allegedly dated 3rd December, 2009 showing that the deceased along
with his brothers had received a sum of ₹34,50,000/- in respect of an alleged
agreement to sell qua sale of agricultural land measuring 31 bighas, 18
biswas forming part of Khata No.143/126, Khasra Nos.41/5, 42/1, 2/2, 10, 9,
11, 12, 14, 18/2 and 22 situated in the revenue estate of village Pandwala
Kalan, New Delhi despite the fact Late Bharat Lal died on 6th July, 2009. It
is further alleged that the petitioner used the said receipts before this Court
in CS (OS) No.800/2013 titled as Sanjay Vs. Shiv Narayan & Ors. The
petitioner further produced an affidavit-cum-receipt before this Court
allegedly executed by Dharmender Yadav in front of two witnesses Ajay
Kumar and Divyanshu Dutt acknowledging receipt of ₹34,50,000/- in cash
by him and his uncles and that receipt was returned after getting his father's
signatures. During the course of investigation, the alleged receipts-cum-
affidavit/undertakings were also found to be forged as the revenue stamp
affixed on the alleged receipt dated 3rd December, 2009 was printed in May,
2011 at Indian Security Press, Nasik and dispatched for sale in August, 2011
and thus could not have been available for sale on 3rd December, 2009. The
third forgery allegedly committed by the petitioner is the part payment
receipt of ₹34,50.000/- wherein as per the FSL Report, the numerical '1' has
been altered to '4' and signatures of Bharat Lal were found to be forged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the
various documents and states that though today Shiv Narayan and Satya Dev
are opposing his bail application but as per the FSL Report, the signatures of
Satyadev and Shiv Narayan on the receipt have been found to be genuine
and signed by them. He further states that there are video recordings to
show that Dharmender Yadav had accepted part payment of ₹34,50,000/-
which fortifies the case of the petitioner that the money was duly given to
Shiv Narayan, Satyadev and Dharmender Yadav. The petitioner has already
settled the matter with the legal heirs of Bharat Lal namely Rekha, Mala and
Dharmender and the signatures of Satya Dev and Shiv Narayan being
genuine, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court through
other documents wherein signatures of Shiv Narayan have been found to be
genuine and contends that besides payment of ₹60,00,000/- and ₹34,50,000/-
further payments have also been made which documents are genuine in
nature even as per the FSL Report. He has also taken this Court through the
sale deed executed between the petitioner and legal heirs of Bharat Lal
wherein the balance consideration has been received by them by various
bank transactions and that they acknowledge the receipt of the payments
earlier and thus it cannot be held that the petitioner with the intention to
cheat forged the documents.
5. The issue in the present petition is not only of having in the first
instance created forged and fabricated documents but also of filing forged
documents before this Court.
6. As noted above, in the part payment received, the figure of '1' has
been changed to '4'. Further signatures of Bharat Lal were forged and
fabricated as he was no more alive on 3rd December, 2009 and even as per
opinion of the handwriting expert the said signatures did not belong to
Bharat Lal. Further even the receipt dated 3rd December, 2009
acknowledging receipt of ₹34,50,000/- by Dharmender Yadav is a
manufactured document for the reason the revenue stamps was not available
on 3rd December, 2009 for being purchased in the market.
7. Considering the FSL Report and facts which have emerged in
investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2019
mamta
