BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009 Decided on 06.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : RAVINDER MAAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Harindra Kumar, Adv. with petitioner in person. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State. SI K.R. Kundan, EOW Crime Branch CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present application is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 read with 492 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of anticipatory bail for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC on the basis of an FIR dated 2.8.2007 lodged by one Shri Moharram with PS Alipur, Delhi. 2. The brief facts of the case, as reflected from the status report dated 16.12.2009 filed by the learned APP for the State, are BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009 Page 2 of 4 that the complainant filed a complaint in the year 1999-2000 against Ravinder Mann, petitioner herein and two others, namely Harkishan @ Harki and Surjeet Singh. He stated that they had met him at Azadpur Sabzi Mandi and offered him land for sale at villages Khampur and Hamidpur. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and the other persons, mentioned herein above, took the complainant to village Hamidpur and informed him that a plot of land measuring about 1600 sq. yards belonged to one Shri Mukhtiyar and that they could facilitate the purchase of that land. Another plot of land measuring about 120 sq. yards belonging to one Shri Mohan Lal was also shown to the complainant and he was informed that the same was available for sale. Believing the version of the aforesaid persons, the complainant made payments in installments to them to the tune of Rs.6.44 lacs against sale of 7 different plots. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the plots which were sold to him, were not in existence or they were in the name of some other persons. The documents signed by the complainant and the alleged persons were provided to the police by the complainant along with the specimen signatures and referred to the FSL for comparison and for furnishing an expert opinion. 3. The Status Report mentions that one of the plots purchased by the complainant was on the basis of the petitioner herein executing a GPA in favour of one Satish, who stated that the said plot was BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009 Page 3 of 4 purchased from the petitioner herein and had been pledged to Harikishan against a loan, who in turn, did not return the documents to him. On enquiry, the Registrar’s Office also confirmed that the land belonged to one Shri Raj Singh, and that the petitioner herein had no authority to execute any GPA in favour of Satish, in respect of the aforesaid property. The details of the land sold to the complainant and his family members is furnished in the status report. 4. Besides the complainant, another lady by the name of Smt. Leela w/o Shri Rajkumar has also complained that the petitioner herein and 2 other accused have tried to sell the same parcel of land and have entered into an agreement with her with regard to sale of land which did not belong to them. 5. The report further reveals that several persons have been examined during the course of investigation and the said witnesses have corroborated the version of the complainant and have clearly stated that the present petitioner along with Harikishan @ Harki and Surjeet Singh have induced the complainant to make payments in consideration for the sale of land and gave the complainant forged property documents in respect of the land, which they did not own. 6. Pertinently, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Session’s Court, vide order dated 18.10.2007 and a BAIL APPLN. No.2301/2009 Page 4 of 4 similar application filed by the petitioner earlier, being Bail Application No.2819/2007, was sought to be withdrawn. The said petition was consequently dismissed vide order dated 10.4.2008. Yet another anticipatory bail application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed, vide order dated 20.11.2009. No fresh cause of action has arisen, nor have any new circumstances or grounds urged by the petitioner to maintain yet another petition for anticipatory bail. 7. Further, the learned APP for the State states that the petitioner has not given any effective assistance to the Investigating Officer and nor has he produced the documents sought from him. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for anticipatory bail. The same is accordingly dismissed. HIMA KOHLI,J JULY 06, 2010 sk