RANBIR SINGH KHARAB Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the two bail applications filed under section 438 Cr. P. C. seeking anticipatory bail by husband and wife in case FIRs No. 329/2006 registered under Sections 409/420/120b IPC and fir NO. 761/2007 registered under Sections 409/420/120b/506 IPC at p. S. Uttam Nagar which later on were investigated by the EOW, Cell, qutub Enclave Mehrauli, New Delhi

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they are law abiding and peace loving citizens. One of them, namely, husband was also elected as mla from Najafgarh as an independent candidate. It has been submitted that the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the petitioners only at the behest of losing candidates. It is submitted that the complainant in the FIRs are one Praveen Dahiya who is real nephew of the petitioner being son of his brother-in-law, basically to force the petitioners to repay the loan which was allegedly obtained by petitioner, Anita from her brother in the year 1999. In fact, after election of Ranbir Singh for Legislative Assembly, the complainant and his father misused the trust and confidence reposed in the petitioner for their monetary gain and this is the reason that these FIRs were registered. It is submitted that prosecution was also sought to be made of the petitioners on the basis of dishonor of cheques for which notice were issued to him in the year 2004. The proceedings were contested by the petitioners and it is thereafter the complainant approached the MM by filing the complaint and obtained directions under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Since the police refused to comply with those directions, a contempt notice was issued and then the present firs were registered by the police without proper appreciation of the true facts. The petitioners then applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional District and Sessions Judge which was gratned only to the extent that the petitioners were protected from arrest for a period of three months and if the I. O. wanted to arrest them, he was directed to give them seven day's notice. This was subject to the petitioners joining the investigation. However, it appears that according to the prosecution the petitioners did not join the investigation and as such prosecution decided to arrest them and gave a notice dated 01. 02. 2008 and it is thereafter the petitioners filed the present application.

(3.) IT is submitted that the FIR does not make out a case of cheating as the allegations do not make out ingredients of Section 415 Cr. P. C. It is also submitted that the incident alleged against the petitioners had taken place in 1999 whereas the FIR has been registered on 25. 04. 2006 which is politically motivated.