Bhim Singh v. State

1. Present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR no.0715/2022 under Section 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, registered at PS Harsh Vihar. The FIR was lodged at the statement of the complainant namely Abhishek Gupta wherein he has alleged that on his property illegal electricity connection has been installed. It was alleged Signing that the property bearing Plot No.26 and 26A, Khasra No.38/3 and 38/7, C-Block, Harsh Vihar, Delhi was owned by his parents late Sh.Rakesh Gupta and late Smt.Asha Gupta. It was further stated that his uncle and aunt namely Sh.Mukesh Gupta and Smt.Seema Gupta also hold the ownership right. It has been stated that around five years back, on the aforesaid property a marriage hall under the name and style of Shiva Vatika was made and was given to Sh.Bhim Singh s/o Sh.Budh Prakash for looking after. Sh..Bhim Singh used to pass on the receipts to the complainant. It was alleged that for the last one month Bhim Singh did not pay any money. The complainant told Mr.Bhim Singh i.e. the petitioner herein that henceforth they will look after the property and settled the accounts with him. It was stated that the petitioner left certain furniture, generator and other articles with the complainant and left the place. On 20.11.2022, the complainant found a copy of electricity bill in the name of Ved Prakash son of Sh.Sant Ram. On being checked, it was found that the earlier electricity meter in the name of the complainant was removed. On further verification, it was found that the petitioner along with his accomplice Prem Pal and Ved Prakash had got prepared the forged documents and got installed new electricity connection in the name of Ved Prakash. Thus, the matter was reported to the police.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been running the business of tent house and catering since 2011 under the name of Shiva Vatika Marriage Farm House and Shiva Tent House and had taken the property on rent from the complainant for Rs.20,000/- per event and developed the said property into a marriage ground and got registered Signing his business with GST No.07GXHPS1804J1Z[6] in the name of Shiva Vatika Marriage Farm House. The petitioner states that thereafter he has been running the business from there and filing the GST returns. It was further stated that subsequently Rahmat Ulla Khan, Ved Prakash, Sanjay Soni and Hitesh Sagar approached the petitioner claiming themselves to be the owner of the property and insisted that the petitioner may either vacate the premises or enter into rent agreement with them. The petitioner states that he approached the complainant several times but no response was received from the complainant. It was stated that thereafter the petitioner entered into a rent agreement with the aforesaid persons on 26.09.2022. It was stated that thereafter the complainant lodged the present FIR. The petitioner submits that he has been implicated falsely as he is neither the transferor nor beneficiary and present FIR has been lodged malafidely against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner undertakes to join the investigation as and when directed.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner had been taking contrary stand. It has been submitted that the petitioner has filed a civil suit against the complainant and Rahmat Ulla Khan, Ved Prakash, Sanjay Soni and Hitesh Sagar. Learned counsel for the complainant states in the said suit, the petitioner had taken a stand that earlier he was tenant of one Rahul Sharma and thereafter Rahul Sharma sold the property to the aforesaid four persons and he became tenant of those persons. It has been submitted that the suit has since been dismissed. Signing

4. Learned APP for the State submits that in fact the petitioner is the main person behind the entire conspiracy. It has been submitted that in fact, the petitioner got the forged documents prepared in the name of aforesaid four persons i.e. Rahmat Ulla Khan, Ved Prakash, Sanjay Soni and Hitesh Sagar. Learned APP submits that though the petitioner has joined the investigation but he did not cooperate. It has further been submitted that the co-accused namely Sanjay Soni was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after 42 days. Learned APP has further submitted that other accused persons have not yet been arrested. It has been submitted that the forged documents are yet to be recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. He submits that the petitioner has always joined the investigation as and when directed.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant admits that the complainant is in possession. However, it has been submitted that other parties have filed the civil suit against him.

7. I have considered the submissions.

8. In the present case, the petitioner who claims himself to have come in possession being the tenant of the complainant and thereafter his plea is that the property was sold to the aforesaid four persons namely Rahmat Ulla Khan, Ved Prakash, Sanjay Soni and Hitesh Sagar. It is a matter of record that the civil suit regarding the property is pending disposal. Accused Sanjay Soni who is one of the alleged new owner has been granted bail by the court. I consider that taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case which predominantly looks Signing to have flavour of a civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner in the event of arrest be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.[1] lakh with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of investigation officer/SHO, subject to the following conditions: (a) the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer of the case as and when required; (b) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

(c) the petitioner shall provide his/her mobile number(s) to the

Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times; (d)the petitioner shall drop a PIN on the Google map to ensure that his location is available to the Investigating Officer; and (e) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/ Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

9. With the above directions, the present bail application along with the stay application stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J JANUARY 16, 2023 Signing