AJIT SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third application for grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. He has contended that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the sale agreement on the basis of which the petitioner is alleged to have cheated the complainant, Jagdish Maan (deceased) is a forged and fabricated document.

(2.) It has been contended by the Learned Counsel that the petitioner had already joined the investigation and he was interrogated by the police. It is contended that during the course of investigation, the police has not recorded the statement of the notary public or any of the witnesses although, the charge sheet against the co-accused has been filed. It has been contended by him that the petitioner is not in any way connected with the chain of documents on the basis of which transaction has been taken place nor did he authorize or ask anyone to impersonate as Rajesh Sharma to sell the property. The petitioner is stated to be 60 years of age and the only evidence which is alleged to have been gathered against him, is the purported disclosure statement made by one Gabbar Singh, who is alleged to be his driver. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel that this is essentially a civil dispute between the parties which is pending since 2006 which is sought to be given a criminal colour only with a view to extract money from the petitioner.

(3.) The Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 1 SCC 684 and Manoj Rana Vs. The State NCT of Delhi,2010 4 JCC 2448 in support of his submission.