BAIL APPLN./1318/2017 of DANISH Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 1318/2017DANISH..... PetitionerDANISH..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.F. Haq, Advocate.

versus

STATE..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Akshai Malik, APP for State with SIAshish Sharma, PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.Ashish Sharma, PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOELO R R%27.07.2017

1.Status report has been filed.

2.Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction ofthis court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973for his release on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 63/2017,U/s. 420/120B/506/34 of IPC, PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi registeredagainst him.this court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973for his release on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 63/2017,U/s. 420/120B/506/34 of IPC, PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi registeredagainst him.

3.As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant has agreed topurchase flat from the petitioner and his co-accused Akram andZukuruf @ Raja, who had shown her property bearing No. 7312-7320, Gali Khatikon, near Kallu Wali Masjid Qasabpura, Sadar Bazar,Delhi, where the construction work was going on. The petitioner andhis co-accused assured the complainant that the construction would becompleted and possession will be delivered to her within threemonths.Believing their version to be correct, the complainant hadpurchase flat from the petitioner and his co-accused Akram andZukuruf @ Raja, who had shown her property bearing No. 7312-7320, Gali Khatikon, near Kallu Wali Masjid Qasabpura, Sadar Bazar,Delhi, where the construction work was going on. The petitioner andhis co-accused assured the complainant that the construction would becompleted and possession will be delivered to her within threemonths.Believing their version to be correct, the complainant had

agreed to purchase the second floor of the said flat, which was underconstruction and entrusted the accused persons with sum ofRs.14,50,000/-. In consideration of having received the said amountof Rs.14,50,000/- from the complainant by the accused persons, theco-accused of the petitioner Akram executed General Power ofAttorney, Will, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and PossessionLetter on 01.07.2014 and receipt of Rs.14,50,000/-.It is furtheralleged by the complainant that some time later, the accused personsstopped the construction.They did not handover the physicalpossession of the flat to the complainant despite repeated requests.When the complainant visited the accused persons, they threatened tokill her, if she demanded back the money or lodged any report againstthem.On this complaint, the present FIR was registered. During the courseof investigation, original General Power of Attorney and otherdocumentsexecutedbyco-accusedAkraminfavourofthecomplainant were seized.It is found that as per the documents,accused Akram had shown himself to be the owner of the First andThird Floor of the said property whereas he had agreed to sell theSecond Floor of the said property of which he was not the owner.

During the course of investigation, actual owner Mohd. Israr andMohd. Intizar were examined, who stated that they did not executeany Power of Attorney regarding the said property in favour of Akramand it was only an agreement for the purpose of construction of thebuilding.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case was registered

under Section 420 of IPC and the punishment prescribed is 07 yearsand as such the IO is required to issue notice under Section 41 (A)of the Cr.PC to the petitioner.He cites the judgment of Hon’bleSupreme Court in “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014)8 SCC 273. He also submits that it is civil dispute which has beengiven the colour of criminality. He further submits that the petitioneris ready to join the investigation and he should be granted anticipatorybail.

7.Per contra, it is submitted by the learned APP through the IO thatduring the investigation the statement of the actual owner Mohd. Israrwas recorded who had stated that he did not execute any deed of saleagreement in favour of the co-accused Akram in respect of the saidproperty on 11.02.2014 and the accused persons have not only forgedthe said documents but also used the same with malafide intention andas such Section 467/468/471 of IPC were also added. In this regard,learned PP has shown the case diary.

8.During investigation, on physical checking, it was found by the IOthat the second floor allegedly sold to the complainant was found inpossession of one Ms.Zubeda, who stated that she has been residingfor the last nine months and this floor was agreed to be her husband’sshare mentioned in the agreement executed between them and theaccused persons.

9.Learned APP submits that the accused persons have been absconding.The petitioner is not found residing at the given address. Theinvestigation is at its initial stage.The petitioner along with co-accused had threatened the complainant to kill her, if she demands her

money back.He further submits that the custodial interrogation isrequired to ascertain his role in preparing and using the false andforged documents.His custodial interrogation is also required torecover Rs.14,50,000/-, which the complainant had paid to them. Healso submits that the petitioner is also involved in similar FIR No.375/2016 dated 02.07.2016 PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

10.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

11.The petitioner and his co-accused have not only forged and createdthe documents but also after using the forged documents receivedhefty amount of Rs.14,50,000/- from the complainant. The case is atthe initial stage of the investigation and co-accused are also on the runand in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihoodof his influencing and threatening the complainant and his familymembers. Vital documents and money taken by the petitioner and hisco-accused from the complainant are yet to be recovered. It is yet tobe ascertained as to where this amount was used or deposited/investedby the petitioner and his co-accused. Considering the gravity of theoffence and serious nature of allegations and the fact that custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is required, I do not find any groundentitling the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.the documents but also after using the forged documents receivedhefty amount of Rs.14,50,000/- from the complainant. The case is atthe initial stage of the investigation and co-accused are also on the runand in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihoodof his influencing and threatening the complainant and his familymembers. Vital documents and money taken by the petitioner and hisco-accused from the complainant are yet to be recovered. It is yet tobe ascertained as to where this amount was used or deposited/investedby the petitioner and his co-accused. Considering the gravity of theoffence and serious nature of allegations and the fact that custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is required, I do not find any groundentitling the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail.12.The bail application is dismissed.

JULY 27, 2017“sk”

VINOD GOEL, J.