GURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory hail. Arguing the bail application Mr. Ashwin Vaish, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as no role has been attributed against the petitioner in the present FIR. Counsel also submits that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant became the owner of the subject property by virtue of a sale deed executed purportedly by his father, Counsel further submits that the main allegations in the FIR are levelled against the mother and sister of the petitioner that the mother of the petitioner had forged General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit and receipt dated 2nd February, 1996 with regard to the first floor of the property bearing No. C-62 A, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. Counsel further submits that the said documents are unregistered and do not confer any title in favour of the mother of the petitioner. Counsel also submits that the only allegation levelled in the said FIR against the petitioner is that the petitioner was an attesting witness in the registered Will executed by his mother to bequeath the said entire property in favour of his sister. Counsel further submits that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation levelled by the complainant attributing any role to him that he was Instrumental in forging the said documents i.e. GPA. Agreement to sell, affidavit, and receipt dated 2nd February, 1996. Counsel also submits that a Civil Suit was filed by the complainant against the mother of the petitioner in the year 2007 and in the said suit counter claim was preferred by the mother of the petitioner. Both the civil suit and the counter claim were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was not a party in the said civil proceedings. Counsel thus submits that the mother of the petitioner is still alive and, therefore, the said registered Will executed by her has not yet come into force. Counsel also submits that it is not the case of the complainant that the said Will has been forged as the said registered Will executed by the mother of the petitioner has not yet come into force. Counsel also submits that even in the said Will the petitioner is not the beneficiary but he is only the attesting witness and the beneficiary is his sister. Counsel submits that the petitioner is prepared to join the investigation and render all possible assistance in the investigation. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is not carrying any pass port and he will take leave of the Court before he applies to obtain the passport.

(2.) The bail application of the petitioner has been strongly opposed by Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. B.S. Chauhan counsel for the complainant. Mr. Sharma submits that the present FIR has been registered under Sections 406/420/471/120B IPC and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the entire conspiracy in forging the said documents. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is well aware of the stay order granted by the Civil Court and yet he has witnessed the said registered Will through which the property was bequeathed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of her daughter. Counsel also submits that the sister of the petitioner has already sold the said property in favour of Mr. Satish Deewan and has taken an advance money of Rs. 40 lakhs. In support of his arguments counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 AIR(SC) 1057.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by them.