Full Text
Translation output
o $-9 to 13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.1956/2017& CRL M.(Bail)1708/2017
MANJBEV RAI Petitioner
Through; Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Adv with Mr S.A. Hashni,Mr Zeeshan Plashmi, Advs
STATE
BAIL APPLN.1956/2017& CRL M.(Bail)1708/2017
MANJBEV RAI Petitioner
Through; Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Adv with Mr S.A. Hashni,Mr Zeeshan Plashmi, Advs
STATE
VERSUS
Through:
Respondent Mr Kewai Singh Ahuja,APP with SI G.R. Menon
Mr Ramesh Gupta,Sr Adv with Mr Kuldeep Singh,Mr Rajesh
Kaushik and Mr Praveen Goel,Advs for complainant
Respondent Mr Kewai Singh Ahuja,APP with SI G.R. Menon
Mr Ramesh Gupta,Sr Adv with Mr Kuldeep Singh,Mr Rajesh
Kaushik and Mr Praveen Goel,Advs for complainant
BAILAPPEN.1957/2017& CRL M.(Bail)1718/2017
SANJEEV RAI Petitioner
Through:
SANJEEV RAI Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Adv with Mr S.A. Hashni, MrZeeshan Hashmi, Advs
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP with
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP with
BAIE APPEN.1958/2017& CRE.M.(Bail)1709/2017
MAHIPAL SINGH Petitioner 2018:DHC:9002 STATE
Through:
MAHIPAL SINGH Petitioner 2018:DHC:9002 STATE
Through:
VERSUS
Through:
VERSUS
Mr Sudhir Nandrajog,Sr Adv with Mr S.A. Hashni, Mr Zeeshan Hashmi, Advs
Mr Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP with
Mr Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP with
BAILAPPLN.2045/2017
SURAJ BHAN CPIANDOLIA
Through:
Petitioner STATE THE NCT OF DEEHI
Through:
Mr Shivani Kant and Mr Rajeev Rathee, Advs
SURAJ BHAN CPIANDOLIA
Through:
Petitioner STATE THE NCT OF DEEHI
Through:
Mr Shivani Kant and Mr Rajeev Rathee, Advs
BAIE APPLN. 13/2018 && CRL.M.(Bail)18/2018
RAKESH Petitioner
Through:
RAKESH Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
' Through:
Mr S.A. Hashni and Mr Zeeshan Hashmi,Advs Mr Kuldeep Singh, Mr Rajesh
Kaiishik and Mr Praveen Goel,Advs
' Through:
Mr S.A. Hashni and Mr Zeeshan Hashmi,Advs Mr Kuldeep Singh, Mr Rajesh
Kaiishik and Mr Praveen Goel,Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
16.01.2018 There are five petitioners before this eourt. Manjeev Rai, Sanjeev Rai and Mahipal Singh are the private parties; Suraj Bhan
Chandolia and Rakesh are the publie sei-vants of whom one is the
Tehsildar and the other is the Patwari. Reeord shows that the dispute arises out of a disputed land located in Khasra No. 19/18 and 98/2 village Dichaom Kalan in whieh the petitioners are now claiming ownership. The complainant duly represented submits that the petitioners are claiming ownership on false, forged and fabricated documents. The ease ofthe complainant is that the disputed land had been handed over to the petitioners in the year 2002 for the purposes of cultivation alone but by forging and purging eertain documents they are now claiming ownership over the aforenoted land. This ownership has been elaimed on the basis of certain P-5 forms.
Learned senior eounsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2 of these forms have in faet been signed by the complainant. Qua this proposition learned counsel for the complainant clarifies that certain blank documents have been got signed by the complainant which are now being used by the petitioner. Be that as it may,this court notes the admitted position that proceedings under Section 85,of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act are also pending where the petitioner is claiming bhumidari rights qua the disputed land. The next date fixed before the Revenue Assistant is 15.03.2018.
The status report filed by the state has also been perused.
Petitioners have admittedly joined the investigation. Petitioners will continue to join the investigation as and when summoned by the investigating officer.
In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail on the furnishing of the personal bond in the sum Rs 20,000/- with one surety ofthe like amount. It is made clear that the petitioners will not contact the witnesses and will not in any mai-^ner try to tamper with the evidence.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR,J JANUARY 16,2018 SU
16.01.2018 There are five petitioners before this eourt. Manjeev Rai, Sanjeev Rai and Mahipal Singh are the private parties; Suraj Bhan
Chandolia and Rakesh are the publie sei-vants of whom one is the
Tehsildar and the other is the Patwari. Reeord shows that the dispute arises out of a disputed land located in Khasra No. 19/18 and 98/2 village Dichaom Kalan in whieh the petitioners are now claiming ownership. The complainant duly represented submits that the petitioners are claiming ownership on false, forged and fabricated documents. The ease ofthe complainant is that the disputed land had been handed over to the petitioners in the year 2002 for the purposes of cultivation alone but by forging and purging eertain documents they are now claiming ownership over the aforenoted land. This ownership has been elaimed on the basis of certain P-5 forms.
Learned senior eounsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 2 of these forms have in faet been signed by the complainant. Qua this proposition learned counsel for the complainant clarifies that certain blank documents have been got signed by the complainant which are now being used by the petitioner. Be that as it may,this court notes the admitted position that proceedings under Section 85,of the Delhi
Land Reforms Act are also pending where the petitioner is claiming bhumidari rights qua the disputed land. The next date fixed before the Revenue Assistant is 15.03.2018.
The status report filed by the state has also been perused.
Petitioners have admittedly joined the investigation. Petitioners will continue to join the investigation as and when summoned by the investigating officer.
In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail on the furnishing of the personal bond in the sum Rs 20,000/- with one surety ofthe like amount. It is made clear that the petitioners will not contact the witnesses and will not in any mai-^ner try to tamper with the evidence.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR,J JANUARY 16,2018 SU
JUDGMENT