RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Section 439, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 11.7.2003 cancelling the bail granted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (for short, 'ASJ') in case FIR No. 338/2002 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B, IPC, P.S. Bawana (N.W. Distt), Delhi.

(2.) Prosecution allegations are that : Smt. Ratni Devi died intestate; the Will dated 14.4.1989 purported to have been executed by Smt. Ratni Devi Was forged by petitioner in connivance with the others; on the basis of this forged Will, petitioner got mutated the agricultural land measuring 27 bighas and 2 biswas, situated at village Bawana, Delhi, in the revenue record, in his favour on 19.3.1997. The land in question was acquired by the Government and the petitioner obtained compensation of about Rs. 45.00 lacs towards part of the land measuring about 20 bighas on 23.3.1998. The prosecution case further is that the Will in question has been found to be a forged document by the hand writing experts of Forensic Science Laboratory. They came to this conclusion after comparison of the thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi, vis-a-vis her thumb impression available on record of the Primary Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Bahadur Garh, Haryana.

(3.) On the last date of hearing, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that genuine thumb impression of Smt, Ratni Devi was not taken, as a basis for comparison and sought time to submit, as to in which public record, according to him, genuine thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi would be available. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite efforts petitioner has not been able to find out any genuine thumb impression of Smt. Ratni Devi. Learned Counsel submits that he would argue the matter on the basis of the material already on record. Learned Counsel argued that petitioner was arrested by the Police on 19.1.2003; after interrogation he was sent to judicial custody and was granted bail vide order dated 13.2.2003. On an application moved by the complainant, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 11.7.2003, which is under challenge.