Narmada Devi v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. The charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner before the trial court under Section 420/467/468/4711120B IPC. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2012. It is stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

2. On the other hand, learned APP for State, assisted by learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submits that the petitioner has taken Rs.1.[5] crores from the complainant and has executed an agreement to sell dated 01.7.2012 with him in respect of property in question. It is submitted that the property was mortgaged with the bank and the complainant has also repaid the loan of the petitioner to the bani(. It is submitted that after entering into agreement to sell, the petitioner as well as her son, who is the co-accused in the case, were avoiding the execution of sale deed. The complainant tried to contact them several times and then it revealed to the 2013:DHC:6937 complainant that the petitioner had already sold the property in question to one Sh. Kanhiya Lal vide agreement to sell dated 16.4.2009 and also executed a sale deed in his favour on 3.3.2010. During the investigation, it was revealed that said Kanhiya Lal had taken the physical possession of the property from the petitioner and then rented out the same to the petitioner as she had requested that her husband was seriously ill. It has also come in investigation that on 27.11.2009 the present petitioner had executed one more sale deed for a total consideration of Rs.60 lakhs in favour of one Mahesh Verma and his wife and on their complaint, the petitioner was arrested on 29.07.2012. It has also come in the investigation that petitioner has also entered into agreement to sell in respect ofproperty in question with one Sh. Gurmeet Singh for sale consideration of Rs.1,47,50,000/- and has already received Rs.15,00,000/- from him on 20.06.2012. Learned APP submits that petitioner has forged the documents of property in question for selling the same in favour of aforesaid person( In view of the seriousness of allegations, the present is not a fit case for grant ofbail. The bail application is dismissed. ~ v~~ VEENA BIRBAL, J NOVEMBER 01, 2013 srb