Vithal Durga Talwar vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.—This bail application has been moved by Sh. Vithal Durga Talwar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 131/2008 registered on 07.08.2008 under Section 406, 420, 409, 120-B IPC at police station Economic Offences Wing. At the relevant time, the petitioner is stated to have been the Sub Registrar, Canacona, Goa; and in substance, the allegation, with which the petitioner is concerned, is to the effect that a Sale Deed pertaining" to a part of the property in question was illegally registered by the petitioner at his office at Canacona, whereas the relevant Sub Registrar was the Sub Registrar, Panjim, also at Goa. The aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of one Nageshwar Pandey against a number of persons, who, it is alleged, agreed to sell a parcel of land measuring 35 acres to him. It is further pointed out that in the meanwhile, regular bail has been granted to all other accused persons on 09.07.2013 in Bail Appln. No. 314/2009, Crl.M.B. No. 184/2013 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 1052/2013, 5279/2010, 2187/2012, 15689/2012, 19939/2012; and Bail Appln. No. 315/2009, Crl.M.B. 189/2013 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 1058/2013, 5280/2010, 14327/2012.

It is further pointed out that after the matter had been heard during the course of the aforesaid bail applications; and was also carried to the Supreme Court at some point in time; a settlement was also arrived at between the concerned parties. At the same time, it is pointed out that Crl.M.C. No. 2697/2012, that was moved seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the matter has been settled on terms, has been dismissed by this Court for the reason that all the parties concerned, i.e., the buyers and the sellers,'' have now raised certain inter-se disputes and they do not appear to be ad-idem about the settlement which has been arrived at between themselves. It is, however, contended that this has nothing to do with the present petitioner.

It is also pointed out that initially, the petitioner was not available to the Investigating Officer since he had retired in the year 2007; and that after his wife had expired on 16.11.2011, the petitioner began to reside with his married daughter elsewhere. And only when he went to his original residence and found a notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. pasted there, that he himself approached the trial court for recall of the order passed under Section 82 Cr.P.C., and for bail. However, this request was declined by that court, and the petitioner has remained in custody now for about 34 days. He is also stated to be 66 years of age and suffering from various ailments.

A status report has also been filed by the State along with the medical report of the Jail Authorities. A perusal of the, same shows that the petitioner is suffering from number of serious ailments.

Looking to the overall circumstances, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-, along with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The application is disposed off. Dasti.