Allowed

Balwan Singh v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC8 Sept 2016BAIL APPLN./755/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding alleged unauthorized occupation based on false documents, the court granted bail requiring a surety bond, rejecting the need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO.

Balwan Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

•J

¶3

his brotherMr. MahinderPal along with his wife Smt. Dinesh visitedthe site and there they found that their neighbourBalwan Singh (accused),who was residingat plot no.54, had occupiedplot no.55 as well as plot no.56 on the basis of fake documents.

¶4

Learned additional public prosecutor submits that during the 0 investigations,it has been revealed that complainantand his bhabhi had purchasedthe plot nos.55 &56 from colonizerMr. Ashok Solanki on 11^^ December, 1998 vide GPA and other documents. It is contended that documentsofcomplainantare the registereddocuments. It has been further submittedthat chain of documentssubmittedby the petitionerSushilaDevi showsthat Mr. SuratSinghhad purchasedthe plots from Mr. Ashok Solanki on Tf" December,1989. Mr. SuratSinghsold the said plotsto Mr. Mahesh 1^ ChandKaushikvide documentsdated 10^^ April, 1990. Mr. MaheshChand sold the same to Mr. Satya Prakashvide documentsdated 10^" May, 1990. Mr. SatyaPrakashsoldthe plotsto Mr. Ram Phal vide documentsdated 13* May, 1990 and Mr. Ram Phal sold the said plots to petitioners vide documentsdated 8* October,2013. It is submittedthat Mr Ashok Solanki has denied that he sold the plots to Mr. Surat Singh. Mr. Surat Singh has now expired. The documentsproducedby petitionerSushilaDevi are not

¶5

¶6

registereddocumentsand are only notarized.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Sushila Devi had purchasedthe plot from Mr. Ram Phal, who had given chain of documents to her and had also executed GPA etc. in her favour on 8^^ October,2013. All the documentshave been submittedby the petitionersto ,jP the InvestigatingOfficer. The whole case is basedon the documentsand no custodial interrogation is required.

¶8

Learned additionalpublic prosecutorsubmits that the investigations are more or less completeand one FSLreportis awaited.

¶9

Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances,it is ordered that in case of arrest,petitionersbe releasedonbail upontheirfurnishinga personal bond in the sum of ^25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each ^ with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfactionof ArrestingOfficer/ InvestigatingOfficer/ SHO concerned.

¶10

Bail applications are disposed of in the above terms.

¶11

^ATHAK,J.

¶12

SEPTEMBER 08,2016/dk

Balwan Singh v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwan Singh v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Rana & Anr. Vs State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Dharmender Yadav Vs Santosh Kumari & Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Puneet Singh Saluja Vs State & Anr.

Sangeeta Sethi Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sushila Devi Vs State