Full Text
Translation output
::]
I
", ,,I ,I /j
'•1
J
'~ I <I <! ::,'1 ,,, i':
:I :i:i ~ :;I :?:
,;,:
·'' j I I I ;.;1 :> :!I :il ::;i l n :I., ,, I
:::
:::j :1' \ (]
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 943/2013
PRABHA GAUTAM..... Petitioner
Through Mr. V.M. Malik, Adv.
I
", ,,I ,I /j
'•1
J
'~ I <I <! ::,'1 ,,, i':
:I :i:i ~ :;I :?:
,;,:
·'' j I I I ;.;1 :> :!I :il ::;i l n :I., ,, I
:::
:::j :1' \ (]
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 943/2013
PRABHA GAUTAM..... Petitioner
Through Mr. V.M. Malik, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
Through ..... Respondent Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
Through ..... Respondent Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
/o 06.03.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 2963/13 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.MC. No. 943/13 By this petition filed under Section 439(2) read with section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent no.2 by the learned ASJ, Delhi vide order dated 3.12.2012 .
Arguing the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned ASJ had rejected the first anticipatory bail application of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 18.10.2012 but thereafter without there being
2013:DHC:7310 ·~ I "' '/ :1 >''I ~ J ;.,j - J.::'
:>'i ;r!~ I ? ! 'I I ',I G any new circumstances having developed in the case, the learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2 on the fresh application vide order dated
3.12.2012. Counsel submits that there were no new grounds or change of circumstances that could be taken into consideration by the learned Sessions
Judge to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the respondent no.2. Counsel also submits that so far the records of the SDM court were concerned, the respondent no.2 had already carried out the inspection on 10.10.2012 through his advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma and therefore inspection of those records could not have given any ground to the respondent no.2 to seek grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel submits that even in the earlier bail application moved by the respondent no.2 there was due reference to the records ofthe said
SDM court. Counsel further submits that during the investigation the witnesses have also deposed that the documents based on which the respondent no.2 IS claiming his right over the subject property are forged documents.
Based on the above submissions, counsel submits that the present case is a fit case in which this court can direct cancellation of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.
It is a settled legal position that for seeking cancellation of bail the petitioner has to make out a very strong case as considerations for grant of bail
,1/ :I ::1 J I I '', i <I ~J ·::1
,•,I
>~! ~ :~:
'
I
/:i ::I ,:I ,::r J ~ ,, ,,, J ;.:
:·.:i :r "1 I ~ ,,,! ::.j >I :i ·:1 (] and cancellation of bail are entirely on different footings. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required to be proved for seeking an order of cancellation of bail. Cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner.
The order of cancellation of bail can be made only where it appears to the superior court that the court granting bail acted on irrelevant materials or there was non- application of mind.
Seeing the facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute between the parties that they are already before the civil court and a civil suit has also been filed by the respondent no.2. It is thus quite evident that whatever documents on which the respondent no.2 is relying upon are already under consideration before the civil court. The learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 3.12.2012 has made reference to the fact of pendency of the controversy before different courts. Considering the fact that the complainant in the FIR is claimed to be in possession of the suit property and also the fact that the possession of the complainant for the time being is secured, the court felt inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2. The court in the said order also brought out some of the variations in the Khasra number of the property in question as per the claims made by the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The court observed that the documents placed on record by the complainant do not show that he has given proper details of the property which she has claimed to have
I
:i ~j I TI :
/I :I j :.1 :]
::'! '''! ::~;
::,i > :! :j I ::) purchased from one Mr. Rakesh Kumar through sale deed dated 7.12.2012. The court has further given reference to the records of the SDM which showed that the said Rakesh Kumar had purchased the property from one Tej Singh through
GPA dated 21.9.1998 and the details ofthe property were plot measuring 40 sq.
Yards out of khasra no. 1/215 situated in the area of village Saboli in the abadi of
Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, showing 10 feet road on each side but in the sale deed in favour of the complainant from Rakesh Kumar, the property has been mentioned as a double storey property measuring 40 sq. Yards out of khasra NO. 215 bearing property no. C-19/1 in the south of which some other property exists. The court thus found that there were variations in the khasra numbers of the property on which the petitioner and the respondent no.2 placed reliance. The court also observed that although the respondent no.2 had carried out the inspection ofthe record from the office ofthe SDM, but the certified copies were obtained by him subsequently.
In my view the learned trial court has given detailed reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2 and this court does not find any strength in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner or any justifiable reason for cancellation of the said anticipatory bail granted by the learned ASJ in favour ofrespondent no. 2.
There is thus no merit in the present petition. d
<:j 'j I :I. :1' ,, J I ::I w I ~ \.:-~- ~ -, -) '
The same is accordingly dismissed.
KAIL~~J MARCH 06, 2013
/o 06.03.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 2963/13 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.MC. No. 943/13 By this petition filed under Section 439(2) read with section 482
Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent no.2 by the learned ASJ, Delhi vide order dated 3.12.2012 .
Arguing the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned ASJ had rejected the first anticipatory bail application of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 18.10.2012 but thereafter without there being
2013:DHC:7310 ·~ I "' '/ :1 >''I ~ J ;.,j - J.::'
:>'i ;r!~ I ? ! 'I I ',I G any new circumstances having developed in the case, the learned ASJ granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2 on the fresh application vide order dated
3.12.2012. Counsel submits that there were no new grounds or change of circumstances that could be taken into consideration by the learned Sessions
Judge to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the respondent no.2. Counsel also submits that so far the records of the SDM court were concerned, the respondent no.2 had already carried out the inspection on 10.10.2012 through his advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Sharma and therefore inspection of those records could not have given any ground to the respondent no.2 to seek grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel submits that even in the earlier bail application moved by the respondent no.2 there was due reference to the records ofthe said
SDM court. Counsel further submits that during the investigation the witnesses have also deposed that the documents based on which the respondent no.2 IS claiming his right over the subject property are forged documents.
Based on the above submissions, counsel submits that the present case is a fit case in which this court can direct cancellation of bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.
It is a settled legal position that for seeking cancellation of bail the petitioner has to make out a very strong case as considerations for grant of bail
,1/ :I ::1 J I I '', i <I ~J ·::1
,•,I
>~! ~ :~:
'
I
/:i ::I ,:I ,::r J ~ ,, ,,, J ;.:
:·.:i :r "1 I ~ ,,,! ::.j >I :i ·:1 (] and cancellation of bail are entirely on different footings. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are required to be proved for seeking an order of cancellation of bail. Cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner.
The order of cancellation of bail can be made only where it appears to the superior court that the court granting bail acted on irrelevant materials or there was non- application of mind.
Seeing the facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute between the parties that they are already before the civil court and a civil suit has also been filed by the respondent no.2. It is thus quite evident that whatever documents on which the respondent no.2 is relying upon are already under consideration before the civil court. The learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 3.12.2012 has made reference to the fact of pendency of the controversy before different courts. Considering the fact that the complainant in the FIR is claimed to be in possession of the suit property and also the fact that the possession of the complainant for the time being is secured, the court felt inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2. The court in the said order also brought out some of the variations in the Khasra number of the property in question as per the claims made by the petitioner and the respondent no.2. The court observed that the documents placed on record by the complainant do not show that he has given proper details of the property which she has claimed to have
I
:i ~j I TI :
/I :I j :.1 :]
::'! '''! ::~;
::,i > :! :j I ::) purchased from one Mr. Rakesh Kumar through sale deed dated 7.12.2012. The court has further given reference to the records of the SDM which showed that the said Rakesh Kumar had purchased the property from one Tej Singh through
GPA dated 21.9.1998 and the details ofthe property were plot measuring 40 sq.
Yards out of khasra no. 1/215 situated in the area of village Saboli in the abadi of
Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, showing 10 feet road on each side but in the sale deed in favour of the complainant from Rakesh Kumar, the property has been mentioned as a double storey property measuring 40 sq. Yards out of khasra NO. 215 bearing property no. C-19/1 in the south of which some other property exists. The court thus found that there were variations in the khasra numbers of the property on which the petitioner and the respondent no.2 placed reliance. The court also observed that although the respondent no.2 had carried out the inspection ofthe record from the office ofthe SDM, but the certified copies were obtained by him subsequently.
In my view the learned trial court has given detailed reasons for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent no.2 and this court does not find any strength in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner or any justifiable reason for cancellation of the said anticipatory bail granted by the learned ASJ in favour ofrespondent no. 2.
There is thus no merit in the present petition. d
<:j 'j I :I. :1' ,, J I ::I w I ~ \.:-~- ~ -, -) '
The same is accordingly dismissed.
KAIL~~J MARCH 06, 2013
JUDGMENT