AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the GPA which is stated to be forged by the prosecution was executed in the year 2004. Subsequently, on the basis of the same GPA and Sale Deed, FIR No. 887/2015 was registered at Police Station Jaitpur for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) on the complaints of some of the co-owners of Khasra No. 792, Village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. He submits that the complainants in that case are the relatives of the complainant in the present FIR. He further submits that subsequently the matter was settled between the parties and the said FIR was quashed by this Court on 04.03.2022.
Learned counsel further submits that prior to the quashing of that FIR, one more FIR No. 93/2021 was registered at Police Station Kalindi Kunj under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, based on the same alleged GPA and Sale Deed, pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. He submits that the GPA and the Sale Deed in both the cases were the same and now the present FIR No. 734/2025 has been registered at Police Station Kalindi Kunj, which is also based on the same GPA and Sale Deed, and the relatives of the complainant in the present FIR were the complainants in the other two FIRs.
Learned counsel submits that the Applicant is only a witness to a Sale Deed which was executed pursuant to the alleged forged GPA, as per the prosecution case. He further submits that the Applicant has no role to play in the entire incident. He has no relation with the alleged Power of Attorney.
Learned counsel further submits that forgery of the signatures or the forgery of the documents can only be ascertained if the original document is available with the prosecution, but in the present case, the original Power of Attorney is not available till date. He further submits that the chargesheet has already been filed and there are 51 witnesses cited therein, while charges are yet to be framed.
Per contra, learned SPP for the State submits that investigation in the present matter is going on, and that a forged GPA was made in favour of the co-accused Vinod, but the mastermind of the whole conspiracy is the present Applicant. He further submits that there are several complaints against the present Applicant and the other co-accused persons and as many as 69 landowners are involved. He submits that the GPA was a consolidated GPA.
Learned SPP further submits that co-accused Vinod Kumar was projected as the attorney holder of the landowners on the basis of the forged GPA and that the present Applicant was involved in the criminal conspiracy concerning approximately 9,000 square yards of land.
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned SPP for the State.
The first FIR registered in the sequence of events, which is based on the same General Power of Attorney and the Sale Deed, already stands quashed by this Court. Subsequently, the second FIR was registered during the pendency of the first FIR, which was subsequently quashed. The second FIR is also based on the same GPA and the same Sale Deed. In the present FIR also, the same allegedly forged GPA and Sale Deed are in dispute.
The chargesheet in the present case already stands filed. The trial is yet to commence and 51 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Moreover, the case is based substantially on documentary evidence which has already been collected during investigation.
In view thereof, the present application is allowed. The Applicant is directed to be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the following conditions:
The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
The Applicant shall intimate the learned Trial Court by way of an affidavit and the Investigating Officer regarding any change in his residential address.
The Applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing.
The Applicant is directed to give his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and keep it operational at all times.
The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner.
The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the office of ISC/Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, on the first Monday of every month at 11:00 a.m. and shall be discharged by 12 noon, after recording his presence and completion of all necessary formalities.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Needless to state, nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the observations made are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.
The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.