Ashima Chopra v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The present is an application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 praying for grant of regular bail in FIR No.154/2015 under Sections 420/120B IPC registered at Police Station- Mehrauli, Delhi. 2015:DHC:6631-DB

2. In the present case it is observed that the applicant who is a lady aged 50 years has been in judicial custody since 02.07.2015.

3. Mr Rajesh Chugh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, strenuously urged that the latter is innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Mr Chugh by referring to the documents in question would urge that she was not at all instrumental in signing any collaboration agreement with the complainant. In other words it is the assertion of Mr Chugh that the subject document was signed at the behest of her husband who is absconding. Mr Chugh, invites my attention to paragraph 4 at page 2 of the present application to urge that the applicant has been abandoned and deserted by her husband. It has been lastly urged on behalf of Mr Chugh that the agreement to sell with regard to the subject property with the original owner was entered into only by her husband and the consideration paid by the complainant in the subject FIR was credited only in the account of her husband.

4. This court had summoned the file in Testamentary Case No. 42/2011, Jatin Krishan Gupta v. State, in order to compare the admitted signatures of Late Jatin Krishan Gupta in those proceedings with his purported signatures, which are alleged to be forged, on the agreement to sell entered into between him and the husband of the applicant at the time the former was still alive.

5. A perusal of the admitted signatures of said Jatin Krishan Gupta on the petition for grant of letters of administration, the affidavit in support thereof as well as the annexures appended to the said testamentary case reveal variations in the admitted signatures. The said Jatin Krishan Gupta was admittedly a patient of muscular dystrophy which explains the variations in his signatures at different places. The admitted signatures of the said Jatin Krishan Gupta and the signatures purportedly made by him on the purported agreement to sell appear prima facie to be made by the same person.

6. In any event, in the present case it is observed that the only allegations levelled against the applicant are that she confirmed the receipt of Rs.90 lacs from the complainant company. However, as has been stated above the consideration for having entered into the collaboration agreement has not been received by her in her bank account. The prime accused in the subject FIR is the husband of the applicant from whom she is estranged. The applicant has been in custody for the last forty days and it is not denied that the applicant has co-operated with the investigation. The only reason for the rejection of her application for regular bail by the Sessions Court was the apprehension that she may not be available to stand trial since her husband is an absconder. In this behalf it is noticed that the passport of the applicant is with the investigating agency in another case and both her children are stated to be pursuing higher education in India which is the reason she returned to India from Malaysia and was arrested on arrival.

7. In State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Supreme Court observed as under:-