B.A.Nos.1838/10 & 1894/10 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: March 22, 2011 + BAIL APPLICATION NO.1838/2010 KARTAR SINGH ....PETITIONER Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Dr.A.K.Singh and Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocates. Versus THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP. Complainant in person with Mr.O.P.Wadhwa and Ms.Koplin Kaur, Advocates. + BAIL APPLICATION NO.1894/2010 NEERAJ SHOKEEN ....PETITIONER Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Dr.A.K.Singh and Mr.D.K.Pandey, Advocates. Versus THE STATE(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) .....RESPONDENT Through: Ms.Fizani Husain, APP. Complainant in person with Mr.O.P.Wadhwa and Ms.Koplin Kaur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? B.A.Nos.1838/10 & 1894/10 Page 2 of 5 AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL) 1. Petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.716/2010 under Sections 448/380/506/34 IPC registered at P.S. Mangol Puri on the complaint of Ms.Preeti Nalwa. 2. Allegations in the FIR are that the complainant Ms.Preeti Nalwa purchased 250 sq. yards land forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2 Village Mangol Pur Kalan on 4.6.2008 from Smt.Sushma Gupta w/o Sudhir Gupta for sale consideration of `16,55,400/-. She also purchased another piece of land measuring 500 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2 Village Mangol Pur Kalan from Sudhir Gupta for sale consideration of `33 lacs. It is claimed in the FIR that there was a shed constructed on the aforesaid plots and various articles were lying there. When the complainant visited the said plots on 13.10.2010, she found that petitioners Kartar Singh and Neeraj Shokeen had encroached upon the aforesaid plots. This led to the complainant filing a complaint resulting in registration of FIR No.716/2010 dated 21.10.2010 under Sections 448/380/506/34 IPC P.S. Mangol Puri. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the land in question falls in Khasra No.70/1/1 and placed reliance upon Lal Dora Certificate issued in the year 1983. Learned counsel further argued that a civil Suit No.1005/2009 was filed against the petitioner Neeraj Shokeen and his brother Kishan Kumar B.A.Nos.1838/10 & 1894/10 Page 3 of 5 Shokeen, sons of Kartar Singh by the occupants of said property which is claimed to be three storied. In the said civil suit, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the tenants under the sons of petitioners which, prima facie, established that the petitioners were in possession of said property in the year 2009 i.e. much prior to the filing of the FIR. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner Neeraj Shokeen and his brother also filed a suit for injunction against the complainant in respect of said property wherein an ex parte injunction was granted against the complainant in October, 2010. Learned counsel also referred to certain photographs and the site plan which are placed on record to show that the property in dispute forms part of Khasra No.70/1/1 and is in possession of the petitioners for the last almost more than 7 years. 4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has purchased the plots in question through registered Sale Deeds from the owners, namely, Sushma Gupta and Sudhir Gupta. Learned APP submitted that investigation has revealed that the property, which is subject-matter of FIR, was initially owned by petitioner Kartar Singh who sold the same through a registered General Power of Attorney to Bishan Sharma and Bishan Sharma sold that property to Sushma Gupta and Sushil Gupta, who, in turn, had sold the property to the complainant against consideration amount of `16,55,400/- in respect of one plot and `33 lacs in B.A.Nos.1838/10 & 1894/10 Page 4 of 5 respect of other plot. Learned APP also referred to the demarcation report prepared by the `Patwari’ wherein he has reported that plots in question falls within Khasra No.70/1/2 and he also referred to the statements of previous owners recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to show that they had verified that the land in question was ultimately sold to the petitioners. Learned APP further submitted that the civil suit filed by the sons of the petitioners is only a ploy to grab the land belonging to the complainant. Learned APP, in view of the aforesaid facts, has strongly opposed the bail applications and submitted that there are allegations of theft of the articles lying in the shed located at disputed property and stolen property is yet to be recovered and for that purpose, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the investigation record. It appears that petitioners are trying to confuse the issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made submissions in respect of possession of the petitioners relating to property located in Khasra No.70/1/1, Mangol Pur Kalan, which is distinct from the property owned by the complainant located in Khasra No.70/1/2, which is subject-matter of FIR. As per the register of revenue authority also, the property which is subject-matter of the FIR is situated in Khasra No.70/1/2. There are serious allegations of encroaching upon the property of complainant forming part of Khasra No.70/1/2 and theft against B.A.Nos.1838/10 & 1894/10 Page 5 of 5 the petitioners. Stolen property is yet to be recovered, for which custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary. In view of the above, I am not inclined to admit the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Nothing contained in this order shall be deemed as observation on merits of the case. 6. Applications are dismissed. (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE MARCH 22, 2011 ks