Prayagraj Sharma Vs State of NCT of Dellhi & Anr.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELLHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with SI Narender Singh. Mr. Divya Deep Arya, Advocate for complainant.

¶14

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶15

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶16

These bail applications having arisen out of same FIR and involving same set of legal and factual issues are taken up together for disposal. The

¶17

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026 Page 1 of 7 pages

¶18

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:36:22 +05'30'

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶21

accused/applicants seek regular bail in case FIR No.35/2024 of PS Chandni Mahal for offence under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC. I have heard both learned counsel for accused/applicants. I have also heard learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Narender Singh and learned counsel for complainant de facto.

¶22

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows.

¶23

2.1 Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma constructed a temple and five shops in the subject premises, and since he had no legal heir of Class-I, he executed and got registered Will dated 27.02.1985, thereby bequeathing his estate in favour of his nephew Sh. Sahab Singh, the complainant de facto. Apart from the said Will, Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma also executed in favour of the complainant de facto, a Gift Deed, a General Power of Attorney and an Indemnity Bond dated 27.02.1985 in favour of the complainant de facto. Thereafter, on 25.06.1985, Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma unfortunately passed away and ownership over the subject property was got registered in the records of the Revenue Department and MCD in the name of the complainant de facto.

¶24

2.2 Earlier, in the year 1982, the complainant de facto had hired a priest namely Sh. Krishna @ Kisso for daily works of the temple like performing worship and cleaning the temple.

¶25

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026

¶26

Page 2 of 7 pages

¶27

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:36:11 +05'30'

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶30

2.3 Subsequently in the year 2019, the complainant de facto came to know from MCD officials that sons of Sh. Krishna @ Kisso, who are the present accused/applicants had submitted a forged Will and other forged documents before MCD, claiming ownership over the subject premises. The complainant de facto obtained the copies of the allegedly forged Will and registered lease documents whereby Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma had given his agricultural land on lease for 99 years to Sh. Amar Singh, and both those documents on being tested in a government approved forensic laboratory revealed that signatures of Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma on those documents were forged.

¶31

2.4 Further, the present accused/applicants also forged rent receipts in the name of tenants, who were occupying those five shops in the subject premises. In that regard, a separate complaint was filed by wife of one of the tenants in court.

¶32

2.5 The investigation also revealed that on the basis of Will executed by Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma in favour of the complainant de facto, the subject premises were mutated in favour of the complainant de facto. The tenants in the said five shops of the subject premises had been inducted by the complainant de facto and they were paying him rent for past 50 years. But the present accused/applicants forged the rent receipts to be used in the civil suits. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements of those tenants.

¶33

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026

¶34

Page 3 of 7 pages

¶35

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:36:00 +05'30'

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶38

Against the above backdrop, both learned counsel for accused/applicants contend that they have been falsely implicated in this case insofar as the offence of forgery, if at all committed, the same was committed by their father who has already passed away. It is contended by both learned counsel for accused/applicants that till date no civil court has declared the Will in question as a forged Will and that the same cannot be a subject matter of criminal proceedings unless a civil court gives a declaration that the said Will is a forged one. It is also contended that till date the complainant de facto has not initiated any proceedings to get the Will in his favour probated. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused/applicant Pradeep Sharma submitted that the accused/applicant is not aware if the complainant de facto is nephew of Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma and further contended that the complainant de facto has no locus standi to lodge any complaint in this case. It is contended that both accused/applicants have clean antecedents and they surrendered soon after their anticipatory bail applications were dismissed by this court. Since chargesheet has already been filed, according to both learned counsel for accused/applicants, no purpose would be served by keeping them in jail. It is also submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicants that the death certificate of Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma referred to in the investigation is not registered before the Ballabhgarh Authority, so it cannot be said that he has passed away.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned APP for State and learned counsel for complainant de facto contend that the forgery alleged against the

¶40

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026 Page 4 of 7 pages

¶41

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:35:50 +05'30'

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶44

accused/applicants is of rent receipts and rent agreement. As regards the allegedly forged Will, it is submitted by learned APP and learned counsel for complainant de facto that the allegation against the accused/applicants is that they used the forged Will to get the subject premises mutated in their name, which would show that even according to the accused/applicants, Pandit Shiv Ram Sharma has passed away. It is further submitted on behalf of State that the present accused/applicants filed eviction proceedings against the tenants on the basis of forged rent receipts, which were sent to the FSL and according to the report, signatures of the tenants on those receipts were found forged. It is contended by learned APP that on the basis of such forged documents, the accused/applicants are trying to grab the property devolved upon the complainant de facto. Lastly, it is submitted by learned prosecutor on instructions of the IO that the accused/applicants have not handed over the original of the forged Will for the purposes of forensic analysis, which shows their culpability.

¶45

In rebuttal, learned counsel for accused/applicants submit that they are not in possession of the original of the Will alleged to be forged because they lost the same. But in response to a specific query, learned counsel for accused/applicants submit that they did not lodge any police complaint about the alleged loss of the original allegedly forged Will. It is also contended by learned counsel for accused/applicant Prayagraj Sharma that according to the MCD, they have not retained any records of the application allegedly filed by the accused/applicant for mutation. It is also contended

¶46

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026 Page 5 of 7 pages

¶47

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:35:40 +05'30'

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶50

that the forgery of rent receipts is alleged only against the co-accused Pradeep Sharma. In response, the IO submits that he has already obtained from MCD a certified copy of the application whereby the accused/applicant had sought mutation on the basis of forged documents.

¶51

The accused/applicants surrendered on 20.02.2026 after dismissal of their application for grant of anticipatory bail, the chargesheet has been filed, and as submitted by both sides, the proceedings before the trial court are at the stage of consideration of charge. The conduct of the accused/applicants in not handing over the original document which is alleged to be a forged one is a vital circumstance. It is on the basis of that allegedly forged Will, the accused/applicants claimed ownership over the subject premises. Had the original of the allegedly forged Will been delivered by the accused/applicants to the IO, the same could be sent for forensic analysis. Besides, using the allegedly forged documents including that Will and rent receipts, not just before the Revenue Department and Municipality, but even in courts is a serious allegation.

¶52

Keeping in mind the manner in which the alleged offences have been committed and stage of the proceedings, coupled with the conduct of the accused/applicants in withholding the allegedly forged documents, thereby hampering the investigation, I do not find these cases fit to grant bail at this stage.

¶53

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026

¶54

Page 6 of 7 pages

¶55

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:35:29 +05'30'

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49

¶58

Therefore, both these bail applications are dismissed.

¶59

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicants.

¶60

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.07.02 17:35:09 +05'30'

¶61

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶62

JULY 02, 2026/ ry

¶63

BAIL APPLNS. 1301/2026 & 1575/2026

¶64

Page 7 of 7 pages

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 17:43:49