Allowed

Parveen v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2024BAIL APPLN./105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal judge granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy regarding property ownership. The court noted the investigation was complete, a chargesheet filed, and no misuse of prior interim bail was established despite pending assault allegations.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 comprising one surety of similar amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Parveen Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 105/2024

¶4

PARVEEN ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Manoj Godara, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Kartar Singh, P.S. Uttam Nagar.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 15.02.2024

¶11

The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the CrPC seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 388/2022 under Sections 448/420/467/468/471/120B/506 of the IPC registered at PS Uttam nagar.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on a complaint made by complainant Dr. Rita Khanna, wherein she alleged that her father had bought the property bearing no. 34 and 35, measuring 200 and 220 sq. yrds., situated in khasra no. 811 and 815 in Village Nawada, Majra Hastsal, Om Vihar Colony, Phase-II, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. It is alleged that the said property was kept under lock and key by her father and after her father’s demise, when she visited the property, she found that the boundary wall had been demolished and some illegal, unauthorised constructions were raised by some unknown persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:03:58

¶14

applicant, alongwith co-accused persons created a chain of documents in relation to the said property, showing ownership in the name of different persons. The said persons, in their statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, have categorically stated that they were not the owners of the said property. It is further the case of the prosecution that the documents in the name of the complainant were found to be genuine and those in the name of co-accused Bharat @ Sandeep (who claimed himself to be a bona-fide purchaser of the said property) were found to be forged.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that investigation in the present FIR is complete. Chargesheet has been filed and the matter is at the stage of consideration on charge. It is pointed out that the applicant was arrested on 19.07.2022. It is further pointed out that the applicant has been released on interim bail, he has never misused the liberty granted to him and surrendered on time. It is pointed out that co-accused Sandeep @ Bharat has been granted regular bail vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court in BAIL APPLN. 622/2023. It is submitted that the applicant is willing to abide by any condition imposed by this Court in case bail is granted.

¶16

Per contra , learned APP for the State, on instructions of the Investigating Officer as well as the complainant present in Court, submits that the allegations against the present applicant are serious and the applicant was actively involved in the conspiracy of forging the documents with respect to the land belonging to the complainant. It is further stated that one of the witnesses, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, has supported the case of the prosecution. However, it is stated that the said witness has since passed away. It is further pointed out that co-accused

¶17

¶18

Komal Kanojia, who is stated to be the person who sold the land to other coaccused persons, is absconding. It is the case of the prosecution that the said Komal Kanojia had named the present applicant as a conspirator. The complainant who is present in Court, submits that she was assaulted by persons on behalf of the applicant and other co-accused persons on 04.10.2023, while he was on interim bail.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The allegations in the present complaint relate to the ownership of a land which is alleged to be belonging to the complainant. The documents with respect to the alleged transactions have been recovered and are in possession of the investigating agency. Co-accused Sandeep @ Bharat has been granted regular bail vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed by this Court in BAIL APPLN. 622/2023. The investigation qua the present applicant is complete and chargesheet has been filed. As per the nominal roll, the applicant is on bail in the other cases pending against him.

¶20

As per the nominal roll dated 06.02.2024, the applicant has been in judicial custody for 01 year 04 months and 14 days, since 22.07.2022. The applicant has been released on interim bail twice and nothing has come on record to show that he misused the liberty granted to him. As per the records, the applicant was not on interim bail on the date on which the complainant is alleged to have been assaulted. It is further pertinent to note that as per the status report dated 06.02.2024 authored by SHO, PS Uttam Nagar, nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant. The trial is at the stage of consideration on charge and is not likely to be completed in the near future.

¶21

¶22

In totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to following conditions:

¶23

i. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

¶24

ii. The applicant shall intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating Officer regarding any change in residential address.

¶25

iii. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.

¶26

iv. The applicant is directed to give his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times.

¶27

v. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witness in any manner.

¶28

The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

Needless to state that nothing stated hereinabove is an opinion on the merits of the case.

¶31

Copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

¶32

Order be uploaded on the website of this court forthwith .

¶33

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶34

FEBRUARY 15, 2024/nk

¶35

Parveen v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pappu Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Mann Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi )

Saurabh Bhatia and Others Vs the State and Another

Sharafat Sheikh Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Yogender Kumar Sharma Vs State Goverment of NCT of Delhi