JUDGMENT
S.K. Agarwal, J.
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in
the case FIR No. 236/2000 under Sections
420/467/471/448/120B IPC P.S. Inderpuri.
1. Facts in brief are that Tapan Lahiri lodged a
report alleging that he was defrauded by the petitioner
for forging documents of flat No. A-83, Inderpuri, New
Delhi (hereinafter, “the flat”); that in 1992 he
purchased that flat in the name of his firm Kaspat Exports
for Rs. 1,95,000/- from M/s. Cubical Constructions Private
Ltd.; that he procured a bank loan from the Bank of
Baroda for business purposes and submitted the original
property papers of the flat to the bank as a security.
The petitioner was earlier his landlord and had some
business dealing with him. Because of the financial
constraints he could not re-pay the loan to the bank as a
result of which the bank instituted a suit for recovery in
the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He had left Delhi and
proceeded ex parte; on enquiries from the bank,
petitioner moved an application before the DRT for being
imp leaded as a party to the proceedings stating that he
was the sole owner of the said flat and that the
complainant had executed the sale deed in his favor, in
pursuance to the decree dated 23rd August, 1996 passed by
Sh. Prithvi Raj, then Addl. District Judge of which he
has no knowledge. He further alleged that his signatures
on all the documents of sale have been forged and
fabricated and that he never executed any documents in
favor of the petitioner or issued any receipt regarding
the sale of the said flat. On the said complaint, above
case was registered. The investigations are in progress.
2. Learned APP for the State at the outset argued
that petitioner was earlier involved in two criminal cases
being FIR No. 182/97 under Sections 3/4/5 ITP Act P.S.
Rajouri Garden and FIR No. 372/83 under Section 7 of
Essential Commodities Act. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner contests the same. Learned APP further argued
that petitioner had earlier lodged three FIRs. being Nos.
777/98 under Section 506 IPC, 934/98 under Section 389/506
IPC and 935/98 under Sections 341/354 IPC. All these
FIRs. on investigation were found to be false and were
cancelled and the allegations were not substantiated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest the
same.
3. Learned APP also argued that in May, 2001
petitioner filed a complaint against the complainant
alleging that the flat in question was agreed to be sold
by the complainant to him and had taken some money but he
dishonestly mortgaged the flat, to the bank. On the basis
of this complaint FIR was registered; the matter was
investigated. FSL report revealed that the signatures of
complainant on the agreement relied upon by the
petitioner, were opined to be forged. A cancellation
report has already been filed. He further argued that
statements of stamp vendors, who had allegedly sold the
stamp papers on which sale deed was typed, have
been recorded. As per the report the stamp vendors never
sold these stamp papers. He argued that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is required, to locate the
source wherefrom the stamp papers were procured, when the
forgery was committed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
countering the allegations argued that there is dispute
between the petitioner and one Manmeet Singh, who are
present in the court, in respect of some other property
which he sought to be purchased for Rs. 87 lacs on 14th
January, 2000; that he had paid only Rs. 19.9 lacs. Civil
litigation between the parties is pending. The petitioner
has lodged a report against the Manmeet Singh, his wife
and his lawyer. And a vigilance enquiry is pending with
DCP-Vigilance as well as with Bar Council. He further
argued that the complainant did not lodge any report from
1992 till 2000, and the delay by itself shows that the
present complainant has been prompted by Mr. Manmeet Singh
as a counter blast. The petitioner has already
participated in the investigations; and that he is ready
and willing to abide by any other condition, therefore, he
is entitled for anticipatory bail. Learned APP submits
that no vigilance inquiry is pending.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. As per
the petitioner’s own showing, on the basis of complaint
lodged by him FIR NO. 469/2000 was registered against the
complaint. The investigations were carried out and as
per FSL report, the signature of the complainant on the
documents relied upon by the petitioner have been found to
be forged and fabricated. Further it is not denied that
petitioner’s earlier three FIRs. Were found to be false
and were cancelled. Other arguments raised by the counsel
for petitioner that there is delay in lodging FIR; that
the same was lodged at the behest of Manmeet Singh or that
vigilance inquiry, against Manmeet Singh his wife and his
daughter and his lawyer in respect of another property
between the petitioner and Manmeet Singh, is pending
(which is contested by learned counsel for respondent),
cannot help the petitioner, at this stage.
6. The question whether a person is entitled to the
grant of anticipatory bail or not depends upon variety of
circumstances and the cumulative effect of the various
facts obtained in a given case. Mere delay in lodging the
report cannot be treated as sole ground for granting
anticipatory bail. On the other hand, if a person is not
having clean antecedents, this itself can be a ground for
refusing pre-arrest bail.
7. In this case, looking into the nature of
allegations, more particularly the fact that signatures of
the complainant on the sale documents being relied upon by
the petitioner have been found to be forged by FSL; the report of the Stamp Authority that no such paper was soled
by the stamp vendors, and the past record of the
petitioner, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made
out.