Delhi High Court
Hazi Nasim Ahmad vs The State Of Delhi on 26 November, 2019
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 26.11.2019
+ BAIL APPLN. 1283/2019
Hazi Nasim Ahmad ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ranjan Lal, Mr.
Bhartendu Kumar Suman,
Mr. Akshay Nagar & Mr.
Krishan Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Neelam Sharma,
APP for State with ASI
D.K.Tyagi DIU/NE.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj,
Complainant in person.
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 Hazi Nasim Ahmad
under section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 70/2019 u/s. 420/120B IPC,
PS Sonia Vihar.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.1 of 6
on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
implicated. He is a senior citizen, aged about 63 years and is
suffering from various diseases.
3. It is submitted that complainant Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj is
the appellant in Regular Civil Appeal no. 01/2014 titled as "Arvind
Kumar Bhardwaj vs. Bhim Singh @ Ors" pending in the court of
Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. On 23.04.2019 at about 01.00
P.M., the petitioner has received one notice under Section 91/160
Cr.P.C. dated 22.04.2019 issued by ASI Devender Kumar Tyagi,
Delhi Investigation Unit, North-East in FIR No. 70/2019 dated
03.04.2019 under Section 420/120B IPC, PS Sonia Vihar, North-
East, Delhi. It is submitted that complainant has connived with IO
ASI Devender Kumar Tyagi and co-accused Dilip Chand Sharma
against the petitioner and got a false FIR registered.
4. It is submitted that complainant had filed a civil suit bearing
no. 78/2010 which was dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge vide order
dated 25.01.2014. Against the said order of Ld. Civil Judge, the
complainant had filed a regular Civil Appeal no. 01/2014 and since
the complainant knew very well that his aforesaid appeal has no
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.2 of 6
merits, he therefore, filed the present FIR.
5. It is submitted that there is an apprehension that police may
arrest the petitioner in present FIR bearing no. 70/2019. The
petitioner is ready to join the investigation as and when required and
in these circumstances, it is prayed that petitioner be released on
anticipatory bail/interim protection to join the investigation and
SHO/IO be directed to release the petitioner in the event of his
arrest.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its submissions,
has relied upon the following case law:-
1)State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,
1992 AIR 604;
2)Renuka Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.,
2013, SCC Online Chh 257.
7. The anticipatory bail application 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 and
has been declared Proclaimed offender by the court of ld.
ACMM/NE-Karkardooma Courts. There are clear allegations of
cheating against him. The investigation is at initial stage. He has,
therefore prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.3 of 6
8. I have considered the rival submissions. The case law cited by
the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable as both the cases
cited are on quashing of criminal proceedings whereas the present
case is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
9. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Sh. Arvind
Kumar Bhardwaj, was introduced by one property dealer namely Sh.
Sarvesh Kumar to Sh. Dalip Chand Sharma (brother-in-law, Sala of
Sarvesh Kumar) and his wife Smt Sudha Sharma. In January, 2004,
Sh. Sarvesh Kumar showed the property measuring 250 Sq. Yards
situated at plot no. 31, Anuvrat Vihar, Sabhapur Extension, Delhi-
110094. On 11.02.2014, complainant and his father saw the original
documents of the above property in presence of Sh. Dalip Chand
Sharma and Smt Sudha Sharma and paid Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash to
Dalip Chand Sharma and Rs. 30,000/- in cash to Sarvesh Kumar as
commission. Thereafter, all of them went to the office of Registrar,
Seelampur where complainant met the petitioner, Hazi Nasim
Ahmed. Sh. Dalip Chand Sharma told complainant that he had
executed GPA of property in question in favour of Hazi Nasim
Ahmed and thereafter Hazi Nasim Ahmed got registered the GPA of
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.4 of 6
property in question in favour of Dalip Chand Sharma, who in turn
got registered the GPA of 125 Sq.Yards of property in question in
favour of Smt Sudha Sharma. Thereafter, Sh. Dalip Chand Sharma
and Smt Sudha Sharma, both registered the GPA of property in
question in favour of the complainant and handed over the original
documents and possession of the property. On 16.06.2017 and
15.07.2017, Premi Gujjar, Bunty Gujjar, Ran Singh Gujjar and
Prakash Gujjar tried to encroach upon property in question. In fact,
the petitioner along with Dalip Chand Sharma, Sudha Sharma and
Sarvesh Kumar has sold this property to two parties i.e. Sh. Mool
Chand Sharma(125 Sq.yards) and Durbal Prasad and Ors.(125
Sq.Yards) in the year 2002 and has again sold the same to the
petitioner on 11.02.2004. The investigation is at preliminary stage.
The allegations levelled are serious in nature. Notices under Section
91 and 160 Cr.P.C. have been issued and served upon the petitioner
but despite that, he has not joined the investigation. The petitioner
is also stated to be previously involved in the following cases :-
Sl.no. FIR no. Under Section PS
1 184/2001 189 IPC Sakkarpur, Delhi
2 825/2004 467/468/471/411 Sakkarpur, Delhi
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.5 of 6
IPC
3 556/2008 379/34 IPC Vasant Kunj North,
Delhi
4 439/2013 406/420/328 IPC Kotwali Kanouj, U.P.
5 119/2014 482/411/34 IPC Bara Hindu Rao,
Delhi
6 268/2014 379 IPC Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
7 751/2014 189 IPC Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi.
8 70/19 420/120B IPC Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
10. Thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious
in nature. He has committed cheating by selling the property in
question to the complainant despite the fact that the same was sold
by him to two other parties in the year 2002. The petitioner has
been declared proclaimed offender by the court of ACMM-NE,
Karkardooma Courts vide order dated 29.08.2019. In view of the
above facts and also keeping in view the previous involvement of
petitioner in number of criminal cases and further keeping in mind
the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required by
the investigating officer, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made
out. The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2019/Ak
Bail Appl. no. 1283/2019 Page no.6 of 6
