ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 26th and 27th July, 2000 passed by the court of Shri G.P.Thareja, Addl.Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in the case FIR No.152/95, under Sections 448/380/411/ 406/420/468/467/471/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, P.S.Kotla Mubarakpur, whereby bail application of petitioner No.2-Smt.Suricha Rehman (wife of petitioner No.1) was rejected. Case of petitioner No.1 is that the impugned order also affects his rights, therefore, joint revision by both the petitioners is maintainable.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 9th May, 1995, Smt.Subhash Devi lodged a report alleging that some bad characters have entered ground floor of her house No.E-82, NOSE Part-I, New Delhi, and taken control of the same (hereinafter, "the property"); the police on the basis of her report, registered above noted case. The investigations revealed that the property was sold through eight sale deeds, all dated 11.1.95, by the petitioner No.1 on the basis of unregistered General Power of Attorney dated 24.1.87, (hereinafter, "the GPA"), allegedly executed by the complainant, authorising him to sell the property. All the sale deeds were witnessed by petitioner No.2 However, the complainant stated that she never executed the GPA in his favour authorizing him to sell the property; she never visited the office of the Sub-Registrar; and that a fraud was played upon her, by petitioners in connivance with the purchasers. Investigations of the case were unduly delayed and remained pending for more than four years, without any substantial progress, for the reasons best known to the Police. The complainant-Smt.Subhash Devi filed a Writ Petition (Crl.Writ Petition No.374/99) on 13.4.99, impleading concerned police officials and petitioners as respondent Nos. 9 and 10, praying directions for expeditious investigations of the case. Writ Petition was disposed of on 9.12.99 directing the police to complete the investigations expeditiously and fairly within two months. In January, 2000 when warrant against petitioner No.1 was obtained, he moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed; he did not join the investigations and left India. The State through an application (Crl.M.No.932/2000), in the Writ Petition, brought to the notice of the court above facts and sought more time to complete investigations. The time was granted. Petitioner No.1 could not be arrested, and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. against him were initiated. Challan was filed on 3.4.2000, against petitioners and purchasers, namely, Ashok Chaudhary, B.M.N. Sehgal, Sanjay and Tinny Khanna. Learned trial court took cognizance under the above-noted Sections. Cognizance was also taken against other accused persons, mentioned in column No.2 of the challan, namely, Baldev Kumar, Ramesh Aggarwal and Narayan Arora.

(3.) Petitioners challenged the order issuing non-bailable warrants against him/them and filed several petitions for grant of anticipatory bail, but without any success. Reference to various petitions filed by them is not necessary and it would be enough to refer to following petitions.