BAIL APPLN./1113/2018 of SHIVENDRA CHOUDHARY Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

$~11 & 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1113/2018SHIVENDRA CHOUDHARY..... PetitionerSHIVENDRA CHOUDHARY..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Sudhir Naagar, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI..... RespondentThroughMr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State.SI Yoginder Singh PS Jagat Puri.Mr.Yogesh Kumar, Adv. forcomplainant/R-2.

+BAIL APPLN. 1190/2018

SATENDER CHOUDHARY..... PetitionerThroughMr.Sudhir Naagar, Adv.

versus

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAITO R R%14.02.2020

The present petitions are filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf ofthe petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail in pursuance to FIR No.28/2018registered at Police Station Jagat Puri for the offences punishable under

sections 448/380/34 IPC.

It is alleged in the complaint that complainant purchased propertybearing Flat No. 1C, Neelkanth Apartment, IP Extn, Delhi-92 in July 2017and started residing in the said property since then. He locked his ancestralhouse bearing House No. 54A, Shivpuri, Delhi in which some articles werekept.

On 11.02.2018, at around 1 p.m. when he went to his ancestral house,he did not find lock on the door. However, when he knocked at the door,petitioner opened the door.

It is alleged that Petitioner, co-accused Pakshil & Satendra (petitionerin Bail Application No.1190/2018) told that the house belongs to them andthey started arguing and abusing complainant. On that date, he had not madeany written complaint and had only called on No.100. The accused personshad collectively stolen their articles and have illegally taken possession ofhispropertyandthereafter,complaintwasmadetotakeaction.Consequently, FIR No.28/2018 was registered on 13.02.2018 at PoliceStation Jagat Puri.

The case of the petitioner is that co-accused Pakshil Choudharyagainst whom similar allegations have been made by complainant hasalready been granted anticipatory bail by the learned ASJ vide order dated21.02.2018 and the petitioners were also granted interim bail vide orderdated 27.02.2018 by the said Court, however, his anticipatory bailapplication was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 31.03.2018.

Thereafter, in Bail Application No.1113/2018 vide order dated13.04.2018, the petitioner was granted interim bail on medical grounds.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioners have

reasonable apprehensions that they might be arrested by the police in thepresent case and as such they pray to grant anticipatory bail.

On perusal of order dated 21.02.2018 passed in Bail Appln.543/2018whereby anticipatory bail was granted to co-accused Pakshil Choudhary,learned sessions court has observed that both parties were directed to bringtheir original documents. Counsel for applicant therein had produced theirdocuments.Complainant had produced an NCR to the effect that hisoriginal documents had been lost. Complainant produced GPA dated05.02.2003. There was no chain of ownership of documents prior to thisperiod. Some civil suit was also filed by father of applicant therein againstcomplainant side. The complainant though claims to be owner of propertyand residing in the same since 1974 but surprisingly his documents ofalleged purchase of the same are of the year 2003. The complainant has alsonot been able to show the documents of previous owner and veryconveniently placed an NCR on record regarding missing of earlier chain.

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, Trial Court granted anticipatorybail to Pakshil Choudhary and similar allegations are upon the petitionersherein, therefore, on parity, the petitioner deserves anticipatory bail. The IOconcerned,isherebydirectedthatintheeventofarrest,thepetitioners/applicants be released on bail on the following terms andconditions:-

(i)That the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of₹15,000/- with one surety each in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of IO concerned;₹15,000/- with one surety each in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of IO concerned;

(ii)That the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation andmake himself available for interrogation by police officer, asmake himself available for interrogation by police officer, as

and when required;

In case of default of aforementioned conditions, the State is at libertyto take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

Before parting with the order, it is relevant to mention that nothingcontained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits ofthe case.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

FEBRUARY 14, 2020ab

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J