Delhi High Court
Ishwar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 21 March, 2025
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.03.2025
,,,,,,,,,,
+ BAIL APPLN. 4108/2024
ISHWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajbir Singh Sagar,
Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the
State.
Mr. Imran Khan, Mr. Inam-Ul-
Haq, Advocates for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the
applicant Ishwar, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 ["BNSS"] (under Section 438 Cr. PC) in case FIR No.
0311/2023, dated 13.06.2023, under Section 420/467/468/471/120-B
IPC, PS Prem Nagar, Delhi.
2. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint
received from complainant Ms. Malti Mahawat, wife of Sh. Dilip
Mahawat. In her complaint, she stated that she had purchased property
bearing Plot No. A-176/23-B, land admeasuring 32 sq. yards, Khasra
No. 26/24, Mundaka, Hind Vihar, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi on
21.03.2022 from the applicant Ishwar through mediator Madan
Mahawat, based on GPA for a consideration of Rs. 11,60,000/-. Out of
the total amount of Rs. 11,60,000/- given to the alleged Madan
Mahawat, only Rs. 9,50,000/- was paid to the applicant Ishwar by him.
Complainant's neighbour informed her that a person namely Naushad
had forcibly occupied her plot and is making construction. Naushad
claimed that he was the owner of the plot in question. Madan
Mahawat and Ishwar initially promised to return the money to the
complainant, but despite several requests, the money was not returned.
3. The Investigating Officer has submitted the status report.
Learned Additional PP submits that upon investigation of the chain of
the documents which was given to the complainant by the applicant, it
has been found that the stamp paper of Rs. 10/- bearing serial No.
"16AA 518422", on which affidavit was allegedly executed by Rajpal
in favour of the applicant, was issued on 15.02.2008 to the stamp
vendor, but the date of execution of the stamp paper is 10.07.2007 i.e.
prior to the date of issue of stamp paper, which is impossible. It is
submitted that the chain of the title documents, on the basis of which
applicant claimed himself to be the owner, are forged and fabricated.
4. It is further submitted by the learned Additional PP that
applicant was granted interim relief by the Sessions Court during the
pendency of his anticipatory bail with direction to join the
investigation. Even though, he joined the investigation, but did not
cooperate, and even did not submit the original chain of documents. It
is also submitted that the witnesses of the documents are also not
traceable and applicant has not shared any details about their
whereabouts during interrogation.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for applicant has argued that the
plot was purchased by the father of the applicant from one Rajpal, and
therefore being the owner of the plot, he had sold plot to the
complainant. It is submitted that all the original documents relating to
the plot were handed over to Madan Mahawat, who in turn, gave the
same to the complainant. It is submitted that applicant has neither
committed any forgery nor fabricated any documents and has duly
cooperated during investigation of the case.
6. The defence of the applicant has been that his father had bought
the plot in his name on 10.07.2007. However, as per report of the
Treasury Officer, the stamp paper of Rs. 10/- bearing serial No.
"16AA 518422", on which affidavit is allegedly executed by Rajpal in
favour of the applicant, was issued on 15.02.2008 to the vendor. The
date of execution of affidavit on the said stamp paper is 10.07.2007,
which is found prior to the date of issuance of stamp paper. Prima
facie, affidavit is a forged document. The case is still being
investigated. There is allegation of cheating of Rs. 11,60,000/- against
the applicant and co-accused Madan Mahawat. During hearing on the
application, the complainant stated before the court that applicant has
been threatening and harassing her in order to pressurize her to
withdraw her complaint. As per status report, proceedings to declare
the applicant as Proclaimed Offender have already been initiated and
as per NCRB/SCRB record, applicant is also involved in case FIR No.
414/2017, under Section 448/380/411 IPC, PS Nangloi.
7. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and in
particular the fact that the original chain of documents is yet to be
recovered from the applicant/accused and investigation is still pending
as also on account of the complaint from the complainant that she is
being threatened, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
applicant/accused.
8. The application is therefore dismissed.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
MARCH 21, 2025
RM
