Abhishek Chauhan @ Bony vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2020 Latest Caselaw 1194 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Reserved on : 17.01.2020
%                                     Pronounced on : 20.02.2020

+       BAIL APPLN. 36/2020

        ABHISHEK CHAUHAN @ BONY                             ..... Petitioner

                           Through:   Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Mr. Karnail Singh, Mr. Mahee Arora
                                      and Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocates.

                           versus

        THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                          ..... Respondent

                           Through:   Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State
                                      with SI Manoj Kumar and SI
                                      Narender, PS Malviya Nagar.

                                      Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate for
                                      complainant.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

                             ORDER

1. This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 331/19 U/s 458/448/420/467/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station-Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint lodged by complainant Pratap Singh Chauhan wherein he has alleged that he is lawful owner of the flat No. C-65, Second Floor, area measuring 75 Sq. yard approximately, Panchsheel Vihar, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The said flat was given on rent by the complainant to Ms. Apeksha Shalin Victor D/o Sh. Alfred Maxwell in the month of January 2019 at a monthly rent of Rs. 18,000/- per month. The said tenant of the complainant vacated the said flat on 5 June, 2019 and since then the said flat was in possession and lock and key of the complainant. The complainant had kept a double bed, fridge, sofa set, one window AC in the said flat under his lock and key.

3. It is alleged by the complainant that present petitioner, one Shlok Raj and Saurav Raj hatched a criminal conspiracy to usurp the said flat and also to steal the articles lying in the flat and further made preparations to kill the complainant and restrain him from entering into his flat and further falsely implicate the complainant and his family in false cases and for this they even forged and fabricated certain title documents and used the same as genuine knowing fully well that the same are forged and fabricated. The alleged persons broke open the locks of the complainant and internal lock by gas cutter and thereafter committed theft of articles of the complainant i.e. double bed, fridge, sofa set, one window AC in the said flat. The complainant who is permanent resident of Noida, UP came to his flat on 8 July 2019 and was shocked to see that accused have illegally committed a trespass in his house and had stolen his articles from the flat after breaking his locks and when the complainant tried to enter his flat he was wrongfully

restrained.

4. I have heard Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the state assisted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the complainant and given my considerable thought to the matter.

5. It is argued by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further urged that the present FIR is motivated as there has been personal enmity between the complainant and the petitioner due to the family dispute arising out of 2 immoveable properties situated in Distt. G.B. Nagar UP. He further urged that service of the notice U/s 82 Cr.P.C has not been effected upon the petitioner and the petitioner has not been absconding from his arrest rather exhausting the remedy available with him as per law. He further urged that the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C has been initiated vide order dated 06.12.2019 and the matter is fixed for further process on 06.03.2019 by the Court, hence the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C is still under consideration.

6. It is further argued by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was the owner of the flat in question having been purchased the same from complainant in July, 2018. He further urged that after the death of father of petitioner/accused, he had rented the said property to Shlok Raj and Saurav Raj. Photocopies of the documents with regard to the sale of the flat in question by the complainant to the father of the petitioner/accused have also been placed on record. He further argued that at the time of purchase of property, father of the petitioner had transferred Rs. 5 Lakh in the account of the complainant. He further argued that on 08.07.2019, the complainant alongwith his 10-12 associates

including his brothers Jagdish Chauhan and Anil Chauhan and their son Amit Chauhan and Ankush Chauhan forcibly tried to enter into the flat in question, gave beatings and abuses to the tenants and forcibly entered into the flat and took the possession of the same. He further argued that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to pressurize the petitioner to settle the dispute in respect of another property in Noida (U.P.)

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Sr. counsel for the complainant that the allegations against the petitioner/accused are grave and serious in nature. It is argued that as per the allegations, the petitioner/accused alongwith his associates had forcibly entered the flat in question by breaking the lock of the door with a gas cutter. It is further argued that on 02.01.2020 co-accused Shalok Raaj was arrested in the present case and during interrogation he disclosed that petitioner called the gas cutter welder at night and got broken the lock of flat in question. It is further argued that during investigation broken lock of the flat in question which was cut by gas cutter was recovered from the possession of co-accused Shalok Raj who also stated that remaining stolen articles are with petitioner.

8. It is further argued that during investigation complainant submitted copy of electricity bill of said flat for the month of June 2019 in his name and copy of rent agreement between Pawan Chauhan and Apeksha and rent agreement between petitioner and Apeksha and copy of agreement/settlement between Pawan Chauhan and petitioner dated 02.02.2019. It is further argued that complainant paid Rs. 22.5 Lakh to Pawan Chauhan and the possession of the flat in question was handed over

to the complainant on 29.01.2019. It is further argued that during investigation statements of the independent witnesses and the tenant were recorded who have supported the case of the prosecution.

9. It is further argued that the petitioner joined the enquiry on 10.08.2019 and during inquiry he stated that he has the possession of the said flat since July 2018 and his father asked Pawan Chauhan to hand over the possession of the said flat to the complainant temporarily as they have monetary exchange with complainant. She further argued that during enquiry petitioner accepted that the agreement was signed between Pawan Chauhan and complainant on 02.02.2019 and said flat was handed over to complainant, but he could not give any explanation as to how and when the possession of the said flat was handed over to him by the complainant. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that during enquiry complainant submitted cancellation deed dated 16.08.2018 signed between complainant and Ram Prakash Chauhan (father of the petitioner) and as per this deed, documents of property in question in favour of Ram Prakash have been cancelled.

10. Ld. APP has further argued that during investigation Bank account statement of late Ram Prakash father of the petitioner was obtained from UCO Bank and as per the bank statement Rs. 5 lacs had not been given to the complainant through cheque as he mentioned in the GPA dated 24.07.2019. She further argued that during investigation petitioner produced the ownership papers wherein he claimed that the property in question has been purchased by complainant from one Ashok Kumar Khanna but when statement of Ashok Kumar Khanna was recorded he

stated that he was never the owner of the said property and he did not sign any property document related to the said property.

11. It is further argued by the Ld. APP that on 23.11.2019 Notice U/s 160 Cr.P.C was served upon the petitioner at his permanent residential address to join the investigation for 24.11.2019 but petitioner had not joined the investigation, therefore, raid had also been conducted at his residential address but he is absconding from his residential address to avoid his arrest. She further argued that on 27.11.2019 NBWs against the petitioner were issued by the MM Court. She further argued that on 06.12.2019 order for proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner had been issued by the Ld. MM and on 23.12.2019 proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C had been initiated against the petitioner. She further stated that application for cancellation of NBW and dropping of proceeding under section 82 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.01.2020 from the Court of Ld. MM. She further argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in two other cases bearing FIR No. 247/19 U/s 376/376B/377/323/325/354/354A/354B/494/497/506 IPC PS Malviya Nagar and case FIR No. 465/19 U/s 420/406/467/468/471/120B/384/ 386/504/506 IPC PS Sector 39 Noida, UP.

12. In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. During the course of arguments it is vehemently argued by the Ld. APP that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the forged documents of said property and to know how and where the forged documents have been prepared. She further argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also required to recover

the gas cutter and to know the whereabouts of the gas welder who cut the lock of the complainant's flat. Stolen articles from the flat in question are also to be recovered. The petitioner has not been joining the investigation.

13. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, recoveries of the forged documents and the stolen articles from the flat in question and gas cutter are also to be effected from the petitioner and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not joining the investigation and is absconding and proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C has been executed against him, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The present anticipatory bail application is, therefore dismissed.

14. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

FEBRUARY 20, 2020 Sumant