Shafeeq Ahmed v. State of Delhi

1. Petitioners Shafeeq Ahmed, Mohd.Tayyab Qureshi and Mukesh Yadav seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.114/2011 under ^ Section420/468/471/120B/34IPC registered atpolice stationZafrabad.

2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel forthe petitioners andhave examined the record. Counsel urged that the petitioners are being falsely implicated in this case. They have already joined the investigation. The possession of the land is with the concerned Department. Mohd.Sahfeeq had executed a power of ! ^ attorney in favour ofMohd.Tayyab Qureshi, however, it was cancelled on 08.11.2010. Any transfer of land by him (Mohd.Tayyab Qureshi) thereafter doesnot implicate him. He is aged aboutseventy-two years and the registered owner of the property in question and his name appears in the Revenue Record. It is fiirther contended that he has lodged a complaint with EOW on 03.11.2010 and disclosed that he had filed a petition before Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Society, Legislative Assembly, Lucknow for vacation ofhis land and the matter was still under BailAppl.Nos.1308/12,1763/11 &1861/11 process. It is further argued that none of the victims to whom the land in question was sold has lodged complaint against the petitioners. The status report reveals that only an 'attempt to sell' the land was made. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and contended that there are serious allegations against the petitioners who in conspiracy with Praveen Jain sold the government land.

3. I have considered the submissions of the parties. Status report reveals that the FIR was lodged on the complaint of R.S.Yadav, Assistant Engineer, stating that Irrigation Department of U.P. was in • • exclusive possession of land measuring 19-13 Bigha situated in Khasra No.58, Village Jafrabad, Delhi. It came to their knowledge that Shafeeq Ahmed with his authorized attorney Tayyab Qureshi, Praveen Kumar Jain and Mukesh Yadav conspired to grab the valuable land through forged documents. During the course of investigation, certain copies of the documents pertaining to sale and purchase were obtained from Subany ownership of the document of the land in question appointed Tayyab Qureshi his attorney vide registered general power of attorney dated 09.03.2004. Tayyab Qureshi in conspiracy with other accused transferred r the land in question i.e.[5] Bigha to land mafias Praveen Kumar Jain and Mukesh Yadav showing consideration amount of ^55 lacs though the stamp duty was paid on anamount of^75 lacs as per circle rate. Further investigation revealed that no amount of money was ever paid for the sale/purchase of the land and it was a bogus sale deed only on papers. It further revealsthat Ilaka Patwari gave a 'Fird' which showedthat the land measuring 19.13 Bigha situated in KhasraNo.58, Vill.Jafrabad, Delhi was in the name of 'Sarkar Daulatband Maqbooja Mehkama Nahar'. He also gave in writing that as per Jamanbandhi for the year 1988/89 Khewat No.l, Khasra No.58, (19-13 Bigha) no entry regarding change of status of the land has been recorded. Status report further reveals that Shafeeq Ahmed produced a photocopy of the order No.SDM/Seelampur/2004/2213 dated 06.05.2004 to Irrigation Department of UP claiming himself the owner of the land and encroachment of the said land by Irrigation Department. The said letter was found forged and it was not issued by the office of SDM/Seelampur. Shafeeq Ahmed had filed a Civil Suit No.264/99 to claim possession claiming ownership and the suit was dismissed by Sh.Vinay Kumar Gupta, Civil Judge, Delhi on 12.10.2001. Appeal was dismissed on merits on 07.03.2002. Even after that, the petitioner continued to transfer the r land to various persons. He got cancelled the attorney in favour of Tayyab Qureshi on 18.11.2010 and further transferred the land to one Bihari Lai Jangid vide registered Sale deal dated 27.10.2010 for a sale consideration of^80 lacs. The petitionercouldnot produceany document showing ownership over the land in question.

4. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious whereby they in conspiracy with co-accused persons attempted to sell the land belonging to Irrigation Department of U.P. without having any documents of ownership. Documents were forged and used. Each petitioner has tried to put blame on the other. Shafeeq Ahmed blamed Tayyab Qureshi to transfer the land in question after cancellation ofpower y of attorney in his favour to Praveen Jain and Mukesh Yadav. In the complaint dated 03.11.2010 to Additional CP (EOW), Shafeeq Ahmed admitted that Tayyab Qureshi on the strength of GPA executed in his favour sold the land to Praveen Jain and Mukesh Yadav and got a registry done in their favour and cheated him. Mohd.Tayyab Qureshi on the other hand, claimed that he executed a sale deed in favour of Praveen Kumar Jain and Mukesh Yadav on 13.10.2010 for a total consideration of ^55 lacs on the basis of GPA dated 09.03.2004 executed in his favour. He further claimed that after executing GPA in his favour, Shafeeq Ahmed BailAppl.Nos.1308/12,1763/11 & 1861/11 rvy also executed another GPA in favour of Bihari Lai Jangid for a consideration of ^80 lacs and cancelled the one executed in his favour on 08.11.2010 within 12 days of its execution. The real culprit as per the petitioner-Mohd.Tayyab Qureshi is Shafeeq Ahmed who had earned money by executing GPA's one after the other.

5. Mukesh Yadav admitted execution of Sale Deed dated 13.10.2010 in his name and Praveen Kumar by Mohd.Tayyab Qureshi for a total consideration of?50 lacs out ofwhich one lac was paid in cash and the remaining amount was to be paid by way of post-dated cheques. It was agreed that in any case the payment was not made by way of cheques the deal would stand cancelled. He fiirther admitted that the cheques issued by him could not be honoured, and the sale was automatically cancelled.

6. In the light of the above discussion and the serious allegations against the petitioners, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Their bail applications are dismissed. Si^TGARG, J. AUGUST 21,2013 sa