TEJPAL SINGH SAATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed application for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.144/2011 registered under Section 193/420/467/471/120B IPC at PS EOW. Status report has been filed by the State.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Counsel for the complainant and learned APP, and have examined the record. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute with the complainant is primarily a civil dispute for which he has already filed suit for Declaration, Partition, Injunction and Rendition of accounts vide CS (OS) No.417/2010 which is pending in this Court. The complainant has claimed 1/7th share in properties left behind by Late Sh.Mohinder Singh Saathi who expired intestate on 26.09.2008. On 11.05.1999, a Deed of Family Settlement was executed between the parties which was never challenged by the complainant. The complainant has no right, title or interest in the properties left by deceased Mohinder Singh Saathi after the settlement deed. The allegations in the complaint are false and fabricated. The FIR has been registered to put pressure upon the complainant. Attempt has been made to convert civil remedy into criminal one. It is further argued that the petitioner has joined the investigation many times and custodial interrogation is not required at all. Reliance has been placed on, 'Sharad Kumar Aggarwal vs. State, 2012 194 DLT 489; 'Monika Singh vs. State', Bail Application No.2492/2009 & Romila & Anr. Vs. State & Ors., 2003 69 DRJ 255 .

(3.) Learned APP and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant argued that the investigation is at its threshold and custodial interrogation is required. Gift deed was forged by the petitioner and got transferred 79971 shares worth crores in his name on 10.09.2008. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses and obtained the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory which indicated that the gift deed was forged and fabricated on 10.09.2008 whereas no such stamp paper was issued that day. Statement of G.C.Walesha, second attesting witness has been recorded and vide letter dated 05.09.2011 he has requested to the EOW to make him a witness. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the original Will allegedly executed by his father; to ascertain how the document in question was forged and fabricated and if so, by whom; to ascertain the involvement of other persons including that of bank employees and actual modus operandi and volume of entire fraud. It is further argued that mere filing of civil suit by the complainant against the petitioner does not negative criminal liability and both actions can be simultaneously maintained. 'Dilip Sudhakar Pendse vs. State of NCT of Delhi', Crl.M.(M).No.293/2003; 'Homi Rajvansh vs. CBI,2012 1 JCC(Del) 65; Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & anr.,2012 4 LRC 63; Deepa Tracy vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2003 2 JCC 625 & Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 2012 4 AD(Cri) 597 were relied.