Madan Mohan Sharma v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 28 Apr 2025 · 2025:DHC:3040
Shalinder Kaur
BAIL APPLN. 1104/2025
2025:DHC:3040
criminal appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court granted interim bail on medical grounds to an accused facing forgery and cheating charges, subject to strict conditions ensuring trial integrity.

Full Text
Translation output
BAIL APPLN. 1104/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.04.2025
BAIL APPLN. 1104/2025
MADAN MOHAN SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Dolly Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State
WITH
SI Vinod Kumar, DIU/SW.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.(BAIL) 767/2025
JUDGMENT

1. The present is a first Bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking Interim Bail for a period of 60 days on Medical Grounds in FIR No.210/2023 dated 15.07.2023 registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

2. As per the prosecution, the complainant had alleged that a conveyance deed purporting to have been executed by the Lease Administrative Officer, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of one Sanjay Mathur, son of Sh. Jagdish Mathur, in respect of Plot No. 186-B, Block B-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 27.01.2023. Upon satisfaction of the codal formalities, the said conveyance deed was registered the same day.

3. Subsequently, information was received by the Sub-Registrar’s office that the said conveyance deed was forged and had not been issued by the DDA. The deed was thereupon forwarded to the DDA for verification, which, in its reply, confirmed that no such conveyance deed had been executed by the DDA.

4. During the course of investigation, Sanjay Mathur, the ostensible purchaser of the property, was interrogated. He disclosed that, in the year 2022, he was approached by one Amit @ Anil and Deepak through two local property dealers, Sanjay Kanojiya and Lokesh Gupta. In a meeting arranged between them, Amit @ Anil and Deepak introduced Sanjay Mathur, over a mobile phone call, to one Pradeep, who portrayed himself to be an officer of the DDA. The final price for the plot was settled at ₹1.60 crores. Anil informed Sanjay Mathur that Pradeep was a genuine DDA official.

5. The investigations were conducted by the team at Police Station Sarojini Nagar. In pursuance to their investigations, as detailed in the Status Report, the accused persons, Anil Kumar, Deepak, and the petitioner were arrested in the present case.

6. Upon sustained interrogation, the petitioner disclosed that the forged conveyance deed had been prepared by Pradeep, with the assistance of his brother, Ajay Kumar, at the latter’s shop located in INA Market near DDA Vikas Sadan.

7. During further investigation, a search conducted at the office of the petitioner yielded several documents purportedly relating to various DDA properties. These documents were also sent to the DDA for verification. The DDA, in its response, confirmed that none of the said documents had been executed by it. Consequent to this revelation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized the concerned files pertaining to the alleged property. It further emerged that the petitioner was previously involved in no fewer than 38 criminal cases.

8. The investigation revealed that a total amount of ₹85 lakhs had been paid by Sanjay Mathur to the accused persons towards the ostensible purchase of the property, ₹15 lakhs through banking channels (deposited into the accounts of Anil Kumar and his wife) and ₹70 lakhs in cash. The accused persons, upon interrogation, disclosed that the ₹85 lakhs were distributed amongst themselves in the following manner: Anil Kumar received ₹17.[5] lakhs; Deepak received ₹2.[5] lakhs; the petitioner received ₹15 lakhs; and Pradeep appropriated ₹50 lakhs.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged 62 years and has suffered from paralysis and therefore requires continuous medical attention under specialised supervision. She submits that the medical facilities in the jail are inadequate and the treatment being given to the petitioner is not improving his medical condition.

10. Per contra, the learned APP for the state submits that the petitioner is currently getting his treatment in Jail and the other hospitals referred by the Jail doctor. He submits that the petitioner has been advised certain urgent investigations from the department of Neurology and Cardiology at the Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital. The 2D Echo of the petitioner is scheduled on 27.05.2025 and the Cartoid + Vertebral Doppler is scheduled 31.05.2025. Further, the MRI Brain and MRI Angio have not been fixed for a particular date as yet.

11. The learned APP submits that the petitioner is getting the requisite treatment he requires. He further submits that the petitioner does not have clean antecedents and has various other cases pending against him.

12. Rebutting the said stance taken by the learned APP, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has either been acquitted or enlarged on bail in all the other cases, and all such cases are very old. She further submits that the main co-accused, one Pradeep Kumar moved an Anticipatory Bail application before this Court and he already been granted an interim protection by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. To conclude, the learned counsel submits that keeping in mind the grave medical condition of the petitioner, he may be granted Interim Bail.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State have been heard. The record has been perused as well.

14. The medical report of the petitioner has been furnished by the Chief Medical Officer, Central Jail, Tihar Jail, wherein it has been opined as follows: “At present inmate patient is a known case of Hypertension/ Type-II Diabetes Mellitus with history of CVA with right Hemiparsis with recurrent persisting complaint of slurring of speech, right upper limb and lower limb paresthesia/ tingling sensation, dizziness and high blood pressure, for which he is being provided treatment accordingly but despite treatment patient is not showing resolution of symptoms. The inmate patient has reported multiple times in recent past at jail dispensary in emergency as well as OPD for above mentioned persisting complaints and he was referred to Department of Accident & Emergency at DDU/ Safdarjung Hospital and also kept admitted at MI room CJ-04 Dispensary on multiple times in recent past. At present inmate patient is kept admitted at MI room CJ-04 Dispensary for round the clock monitoring and care. Due to right side weakness inmate patient needs one attendant for day to day work.”

19. From a perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that the petitioner is routinely being taken to other hospitals for the treatment of his ailments and has been advised certain urgent investigations from the department of Neurology and Cardiology at the RML Hospital. The 2D Echo of the petitioner is scheduled on 27.05.2025 and the Cartoid + Vertebral Doppler is scheduled 31.05.2025. Further, it has been opined that the petitioner undergo an MRI Brain and MRI Angio, however, no particular date has been fixed for these two procedures.

9,591 characters total

20. The petitioner is also a known case of Hypertension/ Type-II Diabetes Mellitus with history of CVA with right Hemiparsis with recurrent persisting complaint of slurring of speech, right upper limb and lower limb paresthesia/ tingling sensation, dizziness and high blood pressure, for which he is being provided treatment, however, despite the treatment, he is not showing resolution of symptoms.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to get treated at Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi, 110088, as a date for the MRI Brain and MRI Angio have not been fixed, and a long date for the other procedures has been given and the petitioner is in need of immediate care.

22. Accordingly, in view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances as noted hereinabove, the Petitioner is admitted to Interim Bail in the subject FIR for a period of 30 days, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / CMM / Duty Magistrate and further subject to the following conditions: i. The Petitioner shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the Learned Trial Court. ii. The Petitioner shall report at P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Delhi every Wednesday and Saturday between 4:00 P.M and 6:00 P.M. and upon recording his presence and completion of all the necessary formalities, he be sent back. Incase the petitioner is undergoing certain tests or treatment at the times provided hereinabove, he may avail of the Video Call facility to do the same. iii. The Petitioner shall immediately intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit and to the Investigating Officer regarding any change of residential address. iv. The Petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing. v. The Petitioner is directed to give his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times. vi. The Petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the Prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. vii. The Petitioner shall also not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending Trial.

23. It is made clear that no observations made above shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the Petitioner’s case and they have been made for the purpose of consideration of Bail alone.

24. A copy of this Order be sent to the Jail Superintendent concerned for information and necessary compliance.

25. The Interim Bail Application is disposed of in the abovesaid terms.