DEVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition u/s 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.05.2013 whereby respondent no.2 was granted anticipatory bail. It is the case of the petitioner that accused/respondent no.2 sold a plot bearing No.J -262, New Alipore, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs and further took another Rs. 33 lakhs on the pretext of helping the complainant to obtain possession of the plot. When the possession was not delivered, then on inquiry the complainant came to know that he has been cheated by the accused as the papers turned out to be forged and fabricated, as such, a complaint was made to the police on 15.12.2009. However, no action was taken on the complaint and a report was submitted that no cognizable case was made out. Thereupon a complaint was made by the complainant before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide order dated 30.08.2012, the SHO, P.S. Defence Colony was directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to register FIR and investigate into the offences alleged by the complainant. Pursuant thereof FIR No.93/2012 was registered u/s 420/467/468/471/120 -B IPC. Despite registration of the case, the true status was not brought forth by the Investigating Officer. This led to change of investigation which was transferred to District Investigation Unit, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) APPREHENDING his arrest, the respondent moved an application seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court on 14.05.2013 which was withdrawn on 20.05.2013. Thereafter an application was moved before the District Courts. Vide order dated 22.05.2013, the application was allowed and the respondent no.2 accused was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. One lakh with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO concerned. He was further directed to submit his passport and not to leave the country without the permission of the Court. He was also directed to join investigation whenever required by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.1/State has filed the status report. It was submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket whereby the respondent no.2 was ordered to be released on bail, he was asked to bring the surety but he came along with his Advocate Mr. Patnaik and assured to come back with the surety and to join investigation. Despite telephonic reminder, nobody came till 03.07.2013 when accused again came with his Advocate. He was not giving satisfactory replies to the questions put by the Investigating Officer, as such a questionnaire was prepared and he was asked to give necessary information. Mr. Patnaik, Advocate submitted a written request on 10.07.2013 seeking more time for answering the questions. Every time the accused avoided to bring surety. Even his lawyer who had promised to get the accused to comply with the request of the Investigating Officer failed to do the needful. The accused is not co - operating with the investigation. The reply given by him is vague and is basically a lawyer's drafting. The accused is avoiding to give adequate surety despite several calls made to him. His attitude is totally of non -cooperation. The location of the property or its very existence has to be ascertained. The original copy of notices and documents of Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Life Insurance Corporation have to be collected from Calcutta. The accused is avoiding to give the place where he is residing. There is information that accused has in past and is also presently facing other criminal cases including cheating and forgery but he is not giving details thereof, as such his custodial interrogation is necessary for further course of investigation and it is also to be ascertained about the other persons who had helped in making forged papers.