GHULAM RASOOL KHAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 14/2017 under Sections 385/387/419/420/506/467/468/471/376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 66D/66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 20.10.2016. Status report is on record.

(2.) The facts of the present case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 19.05.2017, the complainant-an Afghan born female US Citizen, lodged a complaint of cheating, sexual assault, and extortion committed against her in India by M.K Fahim alias Hameedullah Akbar (main accused). The main accused was arrested on 03.02.2017 and during investigation several cheque books in different names and pass books of different banks including false/fake original adoption deed dated 13.01.2016 were recovered from his rented house. It is alleged that the adoption deed was prepared with the help of the petitioner to legalize his illegal stay in India and it also bears the signature of the petitioner as a witness. It is also alleged that the main accused in connivance with the petitioner has used the residential address of the petitioner at different places like Banks etc. The investigation revealed that in-fact all the accused persons including the petitioner were acting in connivance and conspiracy with each other thereby aiding and abetting to mislead all concerned by giving false information in order to facilitate the prolonged stay of the main accused whilst providing him a new identity.

(3.) Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2017 and has already spent more than three months in judicial custody; that medical condition of the petitioner is serious and he may not survive if he is not released on bail; that the petitioner was never in association with the main accused; that no document including the adoption deed was ever prepared, signed or executed by the petitioner; that none of the bank accounts of the main accused bear the imprint of the petitioner; that the story of the complainant is concocted and false in as much as she herself admitted that the main accused was apprehended in an Interpol case and was a scammer but still gave him 6.850 US Dollars; that the conduct of the complainant is questionable as she knew that the main accused cheated her and still gave him money-the fact which is liable to make her an accomplice in the present case; that the other co-accused/Sagheer Ahmad Khan had been released on bail vide common order dated 30.05.2017 even though the adoption deed in question also bears his signature as a witness; that the petitioner was not a beneficiary with the main accused as no money was ever transferred into the account of the petitioner either from the complainant or from the main accused; that there are no specific allegations either in the complaint dated 01.02.2017 or in the FIR against the petitioner as the same are directed solely against the main accused/Hameedullah Akbar; hence the petitioner be granted bail.