{"id":201394,"date":"2002-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2"},"modified":"2015-12-29T06:36:26","modified_gmt":"2015-12-29T01:06:26","slug":"abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 348, 2002 (64) DRJ 308<\/div>\n
Author: S Agarwal<\/div>\n
Bench: S Agarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  S.K. Agarwal, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This petition under Sections 397\/401 Cr.P.C. is
\ndirected against the orders dated 26th and 27th July, 2000
\npassed by the court of Shri G.P. Thareja, Addl. Sessions
\nJudge, New Delhi, in the case FIR No. 152\/95, under
\nSections 448\/380\/411\/406\/420\/468\/467\/471\/120-B IPC,
\nP.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, whereby bail application of
\npetitioner No. 2-Smt. Suricha Rehman (wife of petitioner
\nNo. 1) was rejected. Case of petitioner No. 1 is that the
\nimpugned order also affects his rights, therefore, joint
\nrevision by both the petitioners is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Facts in brief are that on 9th May, 1995, Smt. Subhash
\nDevi lodged a report alleging that some bad characters
\nhave entered ground floor of her house No. E-82, NDSE
\nPart-I, New Delhi, and taken control of the same
\n(hereinafter, “the property”); the police on the basis of
\nher report, registered above noted case. The
\ninvestigations revealed that the property was sold through
\neight sale deeds, all dated 11.1.95, by the petitioner
\nNo. 1 on the basis of unregistered General Power of
\nAttorney dated 24.1.87, (hereinafter, “the GPA”),
\nallegedly executed by the complainant, authorising him to
\nsell the property. All the sale deeds were witnessed by
\npetitioner No. 2 However, the complainant stated that she
\nnever executed the GPA in his favor authorizing him to
\nsell the property; she never visited the office of the
\nSub-Registrar; and that a fraud was played upon her, by
\npetitioners in connivance with the purchasers.
\nInvestigations of the case were unduly delayed and
\nremained pending for more than four years, without any
\nsubstantial progress, for the reasons best known to the
\nPolice. The complainant-Smt. Subhash Devi filed a Writ
\nPetition (Crl.Writ Petition No. 374\/99) on 13.4.99,
\nimpleading concerned police officials and petitioners as
\nrespondent Nos. 9 and 10, praying directions for
\nexpeditious investigations of the case. Writ Petition was
\ndisposed of on 9.12.99 directing the police to complete
\nthe investigations expeditiously and fairly within two
\nmonths. In January, 2000 when warrant against petitioner
\nNo. 1 was obtained, he moved an application for grant of
\nanticipatory bail, which was dismissed; he did not join
\nthe investigations and left India. The State through an
\napplication (Crl.M.No. 932\/2000), in the Writ Petition,
\nbrought to the notice of the court above facts and sought
\nmore time to complete investigations. The time was
\ngranted. Petitioner No. 1 could not be arrested, and
\nproceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
\nagainst him were initiated. Challan was filed on
\n3.4.2000, against petitioners and purchasers, namely,
\nAshok Chaudhary, B.M.N. Sehgal, Sanjay and Tinny Khanna.
\nLearned trial court took cognizance under the above-noted
\nSections. Cognizance was also taken against other accused
\npersons, mentioned in column No. 2 of the challan, namely,
\nBaldev Kumar, Ramesh Aggarwal and Narayan Arora.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Petitioners challenged the order issuing non-bailable
\nwarrants against him\/them and filed several petitions for
\ngrant of anticipatory bail, but without any success.
\nReference to various petitions filed by them is not
\nnecessary and it would be enough to refer to following
\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n
 (i) On 27th July, 2000, bail application of accused
\nMrs. Suricha Rehman (petitioner No. 2) was dismissed by the
\nlearned Addl. Sessions Judge with liberty to move bail
\napplication again after she deposits the amount received
\nby her husband by selling the property along with
\ninterest. She sent to judicial custody. It was held
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “It is admitted before me that the money
\nis with Abdul Rehman, the husband of the
\naccused. On the face of such a
\nsituation, should bail be granted. The
\ngood conscious directs me ‘No’ until and
\nunless equity is maintained by the
\naccused. Since good conscious directs
\notherwise, I refuse bail to the
\napplicant. However, I give liberty to
\nthe applicant who are present that if
\nthey are ready to part with the money
\nalong with interest up to date by way of a
\nbank draft at bank rate to move for bail
\nagain. Application is disposed of
\naccordingly. Applicant be sent to
\ncustody and produce before the MM
\ntomorrow.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
ASJ, N. Delhi”\n<\/p>\n
 After two or three days she was granted bail by the
\ntrial court. However, the bail was cancelled on
\n4.8.2000 by the trial court on the ground that it was
\nobtained by misrepresentation and that it was not
\nbrought to the court’s notice that her bail application
\nwas earlier dismissed on merits. (ii) On 20.9.2000 the
\npetitioner No. 1 moved an application
\n(Crl.M.No. 1790\/2000) in the above-noted Writ Petition of
\nthe complainant wherein in Crl.W.No. 374\/99, they were
\narrayed as respondents 9 and 10 and obtained interim
\nprotection against arrest, he was directed to join the
\ninvestigation and to produce the original GPA. He
\nparticipated in the investigation on 21.9.2000, but did
\nnot produce the original GPA and consequently on
\n29.11.2000, his application was dismissed and the
\nprotection against arrest was vacated by the Division
\nBench holding as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “Respondent No. 9, in spite of directions
\nof 20th of September, 2000, has not
\nproduced the original power of attorney.
\n Let the State draw inference, admissible
\nunder law, to the same. The interim
\nprotection that respondent No. 9 shall not
\nbe arrested stands vacated. With the
\nobservations, application stands disposed
\nof. dusty counsel for State.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied) <\/p>\n
 (iii) On 28.9.2000, petitioners filed above revision
\npetition against the order dated 27.7.2000 dismissing
\nbail application of petitioner No. 2, inter alia, on the
\nground that the principle of “equity” does not apply to
\nthe criminal courts and it cannot act as a court of
\nrecovery; that the Addl. Sessions Judge did not take
\ninto account that two civil suits between the parties
\nrelating to the same properties were pending; that it
\nwas not possible for the petitioners to fulfill the
\ncondition for depositing of the amount and it amounts to
\ndenial of bail. Notice was issued and interim
\nprotection against arrest was granted again subject to
\nthe condition that they will join investigation. this
\ninterim order continues to operate. This petition is
\nbeing decided by this order.\n<\/p>\n
 4. At the outset it may be noticed that the petitioners
\nin above petition filed on 28.9.2000 concealed the fact
\nthat the bail granted to petitioner No. 2 was cancelled
\nvide orders dated 4th August, 2000 by the trial court,
\nand that similar protection against arrest was operating
\nby the order of Division Bench. These facts came light
\nonly during arguments. On 31.5.2001, when the matter
\ncame up for hearing on, it was noticed that
\ninvestigations were carried out in a slip shod manner,
\nwithout adopting the scientific approach. Several
\ncrucial aspects of the case were not investigated.
\nLooking into the nature of allegations and gravity of
\nthe offence, and the fact that the petitioner No. 1 is
\npracticing advocate, DCP, South District was directed to
\nexamine the matter. Thereafter, it appears that further
\ninvestigations were taken up. On 23.8.2001, Mr. P.
\nKamraj, DCP, South District, filed an affidavit stating
\nthat: (i) during the course of investigation sale deeds
\nexecuted by the petitioner Abdul Rehman in favor of
\npurchasers were collected & deposited with Forensic
\nScience Laboratory (hereinafter “F.S.L.”) Malviya Nagar
\nfor opinion on the disputed signatures; receipts of
\npayment, were neither found with relevant papers in Sub
\nRegistrar’s Office nor the purchasers produced the same.
\nPurchasers stated that Abdul Rehman admitted before
\nSub-Registrar about the payment. This fact was also
\ncorroborated by the then Sub Registrar. Sh. Shyam Chand
\nwho registered the sale deeds; (ii) enquiries from
\npurchasers revealed that they had paid a sum of Rs. 15,10,000.00 out of which Rs. 7,70,000.00 was paid
\nthrough cheques and rest payment was made in Cash. The
\ndetails of various payment were also given. Ashok
\nChaudhary (the purchaser) paid Rs. 2,00,000.00 through
\nCheque No. 596789 issued form P.N.B. South Extn.
\nwhich was encashed by Abdul Rehman; B.M.N. Sehgal (the
\npurchaser), paid Rs. 2,00,000.00 through Cheque No. 484208
\nfrom his saving A\/C No. 10273 of Syndicate Bank. Green
\nPark and Tinny Khanna (the purchaser) paid
\nRs. 2,00,000.00 and 1,70,000.00 through Cheque No.
\n493338 & 493339 respectively issued from their account
\nwere encashed by Abdul Rehman through his Account
\nNo. 112148 in Allahabad Bank Krishana Nagar, Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) in the course of further investigation original
\nsale deeds, possession letter given by Abdul Rehman to
\nBMN Sehgal (the purchaser) along with relevant documents
\nwere deposited with FSL; (iv) it was found that out of
\nRs. 7,70,000.00 received by Abdul Rehman through cheques
\nfrom the Purchasers in his A\/c No. 112148 of Allahabad
\nBank, Krishna Nagar Rs. 5,03,287 was available which was
\nseized; and (v) certified copies of sale deeds were
\ncollected from the office of Sub-Registrar. Shri Shyam
\nChand, Sub-Registrar stated that Abdul Rehman admitted
\nbefore him that he had received Rs. 15.10 lacs from the
\npurchasers. The petitioners did not produce original
\nGPA. The police sought more time to complete further
\ninvestigation. On 1.11.2001 another status report of
\nthe investigation was filed incorporating the opinion of
\nthe hand writing expert on the documents seized
\nincluding photocopy of the GPA on the basis of which
\nsale deeds were executed. The GPA and the affidavit
\nwere opined to be not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners took time to
\nfile reply and to have instructions in the matter. On
\n23rd January, 2002, Shri K.B. Andley, learned Senior
\nAdvocate, on instructions from petitioner No. 1,
\nsubmitted that without prejudice to his rights and
\ncontentions, he was ready and willing to deposit the
\nentire sale consideration of Rs. 15.10 lacs received by
\nhim, as the attorney of the complainant from the
\npurchasers while executing eight sale deeds and sought
\ntwo months’ time and that the petitioner does not claim
\nany right in the premises in dispute and would have no
\nobjection if the premises in dispute are seized during
\ninvestigation. Petitioner was directed to file
\naffidavit in support of his submission. Petitioner No. 1
\ndeposited the amount in the Court and on 28th May, 2002
\nfiled an affidavit in support of his submission, which
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “(i) That I had executed eight Sale
\nDeeds on 11.1.1995 in respect of property
\nNo. E-82, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi 110049 on
\nthe strength of General Power of Attorney
\ndated 24.1.1987 executed by Subhash Devi
\nVed Prakash in my favor. The GPA was
\nnotarized only and not registered.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) That I had handed over the
\noriginal General Power of Attorney to
\nShri Ashok Kumar at the time of execution
\nof Sale Deeds on 11.1.1995. Shri Ashok
\nKumar was accompanied by Shri B.M.N.\n<\/p>\n
Sehgal at the time of the execution of
\nSale Deeds.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) That after 11.1.1995 I never came
\nin possession of original General Power
\nof Attorney.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) That as per directions of the
\nDivision Bench dated 20.9.2000 in
\nCriminal Writ Petition No. 374\/99 I had
\nmade sincere efforts to obtain the
\nGeneral Power of Attorney from Shri Ashok
\nKumar and Shri B.M.N. Sehgal but both of
\nthem refused to oblige without assigning
\nany reason. The original General Power
\nof Attorney is still in their possession
\nor may have been misplaced by them. In
\nany case it was handed over by me to Shri
\nAshok Kumar on 11.1.1995 at the time of
\nexecution of Sale Deeds. Shri Ashok
\nKumar and Shri B.M.N. Sehgal are the
\nmain purchasers of the property and seems
\nto be unwilling to produce the original
\nGeneral Power of Attorney for reasons
\nbest known to them.\n<\/p>\n
 (v) That I have deposited the entire
\nsale consideration for property No. E-82,
\nNDSE Part I, New Delhi-110049 which is
\nin the sum of Rs. 15.1 lacs (Rupees
\nFifteen lacs Ten Thousand only) in this
\nCourt in the form of Bank Draft in favor
\nof the Registrar, High Court of Delhi,
\nwithout prejudice to the rights of the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
 (vi). That I have authenticated by
\nsigning on each page a photo copy of the
\noriginal General Power of attorney dated
\n24.1.1987, a copy of which is on police
\nfile. The photo copy authenticated by me
\nis the true copy of the original General
\nPower of attorney dated 24.1.1987 on the
\nstrength of which I executed 8 Sale Deeds
\non 11.1.1995 in respect of property
\nNo. E-82 NDSE Part-I, New Delhi-110049.
\nAll the original sale deeds executed by
\nme on 11.1.1995 were also authenticated
\nby me with my signatures on each page of
\nall the 8 sale deeds in question.\n<\/p>\n
 (vii). That the investigating officer
\nnamely, Inspector Hanuman Dan, conducted
\nsearches at my residence and my Chamber
\nin Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-54 on
\n25.5.2002. A proper Search Memo was
\nprepared by the Investigating Officer and
\nhe got the same signed by me and my wife
\nMs. Suricha Rehman who is petitioner NO. 2<\/span>
\nin the Revision Petition. The petitioner
\nNo. 2 also joined investigation on
\n25.5.2002 and was interrogated by the
\nInvestigating Officer. On 27.5.2002 the
\nIO called me to his office where I was
\nconfronted with Ashok Kumar and B.M.N.
\nSehgal, who were present there. I said
\nit to their face that I had handed over
\nthe original General Power of Attorney to
\nthem and, more specifically, to Ashok
\nKumar at the time of execution of the
\nsale deed on 11.1.1995. However, they
\ndenied it and said that the original
\ndocument was not in either’s possession.\n<\/p>\n
 (viii). That I shall raise no objection
\nif the police seizes the disputed Ground
\nfloor of the property in compliance with
\nthis Hon’ble Court’s orders or otherwise
\nin accordance with the law, pending
\nfurther investigations, criminal trial
\nand further proceedings with regard to
\nthe dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. Learned counsel for State vehemently argued that
\nadmittedly the GPA was not a registered document; on
\nthe basis of an unregistered GPA dated 24.1.1987, sale of
\nimmovable property could be made, much less by eight
\nregistered sale deeds all dated 11.1.1995. As per the
\nFSL report, on the photocopy of the GPA dated 24.1.87
\nproduced by the petitioners, the entire second page and
\ntwo lines in capital letters on page three are typed on
\na different typewriter than the page number one and page
\nnumber three. The second page also does not bear any
\nnotary seal; it is on this page that the power to sell
\nthe property is contained. The affidavit dated 9.7.1994
\nwhich was used for effecting sale does not bear the
\nsignature of the complainant; and the typewriter used
\nto type the affidavit is the same which is used for
\ntyping of the entire second page and second line in the
\ncapital letters of the third page on the GPA dated
\n24.1.87. He further argued that the original GPA is yet
\nto be recovered and in the absence of the original Power
\nof Attorney prosecution case may suffer, therefore,
\ncustodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary
\nand that in view of the conduct of petitioners and
\nnature of allegations the petition is liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Learned counsel for complainant supporting learned
\nAPP for State further argued that under Sub-section (1)
\nof Section 102 Cr.P.C. Police has the duty and the
\npower to seize the property which has been obtained
\nby commission of offence. In support of his submission
\nreliance is placed on  State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D.
\nNeogy<\/a> , wherein it was held:-\n<\/p>\n
  “A plain reading of Sub-section (1) of
\nSection 102 indicates that the police
\nofficer has the power to seize any property
\nwhich may be found under circumstances
\ncreating suspicion of the commission of any
\noffence. The legislature having used the
\nexpression “any property” and “any offence”
\nhave made the applicability of the
\nprovisions wide enough to cover offences
\ncreated under any Act. But the two
\npreconditions for applicability of Section
\n102(1) are that it must be “property” and
\nsecondly, in respect of the said property
\nthere must have been suspicion of
\ncommission of any offence.”\n<\/p>\n
 He argued that because of non-availability of
\noriginal General Power of Attorney investigating agency
\nwas not able to obtain definite opinion of the FSL on
\nthe forgery on the relevant page of the GPA and other
\nassociates of the petitioners are yet to be arrested.
\nIn support of his submission he also relied upon the
\nstatement made by Abdul Rehman (petitioner No. 1) on oath
\non 9.3.1998 in Civil Suit No. 2165\/95 instituted by the
\ncomplainant where he produced photocopy of the purchaser. The
\nrelevant portion of which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “Statement of Shri Abdul Rehman s\/o Shri
\nAbdul Mazid age 48 years, Legal
\nPractitioner, R\/o Z-2, Taj Enclave, Link
\nRoad, Gita Colony, Delhi-31 on SA:-\n<\/p>\n
 Q. In your written statement, you have
\npleaded in para 26 that you had
\nexecuted 8 sale deeds in respect of
\nproperty No. E-82, NDSE Part I, New
\nDelhi in favor of defendants No. 1 to\n<\/p>\n
5. On what basis, that is, under what
\nauthority you had executed the sale
\ndeeds?\n<\/p>\n
 A. I had executed these sale deeds in
\npursuance of a power of attorney
\nexecuted in my favor by the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
 Q. Where is that power of attorney?\n<\/p>\n
 A. At the time of execution of the sale
\ndeeds, I had given the original power
\nof attorney to defendant No. 5 on
\n11.1.1995.\n<\/p>\n
 Q. Had you mentioned in the sale deed
\nthat the original power of attorney
\nhad been handed over by you along with
\nthe sale deed to defendant No. 5?\n<\/p>\n
 A. No. I have not so mentioned in any of
\nthe 8 sale deeds executed by me.\n<\/p>\n
 Q. Had you obtained acknowledgement from
\nthe defendant No. 5 in token of having
\nhanded over the original power of
\nattorney of him?\n<\/p>\n
 A. No. <\/p>\n
 Q. When that power of attorney in you
\nfavor was executed by the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n
 A. On 24.1.1987.\n<\/p>\n
 Q. Wherefrom have you given this date.\n<\/p>\n
 A. I have given this date after verifying
\nthem in the photocopy of that Power of
\nAttorney available with me.\n<\/p>\n
 (Defendant No. 6 is directed to produce
\nthe copy of the Power of Attorney).\n<\/p>\n
 I am producing that copy of the Power
\nof Attorney duly signed by me now on each
\npage which is marked “A”.\n<\/p>\n
 Q. Was this power of attorney registered
\nunder the Registration Act?\n<\/p>\n
 A. This power of attorney was not
\nregistered under the Indian
\nRegistration Act.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. Learned counsel for petitioners, on the other hand,
\nargued that the petitioners are a peace-loving and law
\nabiding citizen; petitioner No. 1 is a practicing lawyer
\nfor the last 25 years; he was labouring under the
\nbona-fide impression that on the basis of unregistered
\nGPA dated 24.1.1987 photocopy of which was recovered by
\nthe police (one copy of the GPA which was produced
\nbefore the Civil Court is Mark ‘A’), he could sell the
\nproperty in question; that petitioner at his own has
\nalready deposited the entire sale consideration of
\nRs. 15.10 lacs received by him, from the said purchasers
\nwithout prejudice to his rights and contentions; that
\nthe original General Power of Attorney, is not with him.
\nhe argued that it was stated by him before the Civil
\nCourt that the original attorney was handed over by him
\nto the purchasers. It might have been mis-placed. He
\nfurther submits that the petitioner had also given an
\nattested photocopy of GPA to the investigating officer,
\non the basis of which he had sold the property; and the
\nsearch of his house and office has already been
\nconducted. he further submits that petitioner has filed
\nan affidavit stating the above facts; he does not
\nobject the property being seized during investigation;
\nthat no case for subjecting the petitioner for custodial
\ninterrogation is made out after seven years of
\nregistration of the FIR. He argued that petitioners are
\nready and willing to abide by any other condition that
\nmay be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
 10. I have considered the rival contentions. There is
\nno dispute that petitioner No. 1 is a practicing lawyer
\nand he has already participated in the investigation;
\nthe search of his house and office has already been
\nconducted and total sale consideration received by him
\nhas been deposited in the court; further petitioners
\nhave no objection if the property is sealed by the
\nPolice during investigations. Attested photocopy of the
\nGPA, on the basis of which he had sold the property to
\nthe co-accused persons, has been given to the Police.
\nThe photocopy of the same was earlier produced in the
\ncivil court and copy of the same was given to the
\npolice. Petitioner No. 2 was sent to judicial custody on
\n27th July, 2000, The co-accused\/purchasers are already
\non bail; no serious effort appears to have been made to
\ninterrogate them in this regard. Learned counsel for
\nState has failed to point out any disclosure statements
\neither of the petitioner or the co-accused persons to
\nmake out a case for custodial interrogation.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Now coming to the apprehension that in the absence
\nof original GPA, the prosecution case would be adversely
\naffected, it may be noticed that case of the petitioners
\nis that the property was sold on the basis GPA alleged
\nto have been executed by the complainant. This is a
\nfact which is especially within their knowledge.
\nOriginal is supposed to be with either of them. Prima
\nfacie the burden of proving that eight sale deeds were
\nexecuted by the petitioners on the basis of the genuine
\n& valid GPA would be on them. This principle is
\nembodied in illustration (b) of Section 106 of the
\nEvidence Act, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “Burden of proving fact especially within
\nknowledge:-\n<\/p>\n
 When any fact is especially within the
\nknowledge of any person, the burden of
\nproving that fact is upon him.\n<\/p>\n
 Illustration   <\/p>\n
 (a) xxx xxx  <\/p>\n
 (b) A is charged with traveling on a
\nrailway without a ticket. The burden of
\nproving that he had the ticket, is on
\nhim.”\n<\/p>\n
 12. It is true that as a general rule this Section does
\nnot absolve the prosecution from the primary burden of
\nproving its case and that burden of proof remains on the
\nprosecution as contained in Section 101 of the Evidence
\nAct, but Section 106 is designed to make an exception,
\nwhere it is difficult for the prosecution to establish
\nfacts which are especially within the exclusive
\nknowledge of the accused persons. In such a case the
\nprosecution would not be required to eliminate all
\npossible defenses. It is not the law that prosecution
\nhas to eliminate all possible defenses or circumstances
\nwhich may exonerate them. If some facts are within
\ntheir knowledge then they have to prove them. Of
\ncourse, prosecution has to establish a prima facie case
\nin the first instant. For this purpose, prosecution can
\nrely upon material noticed above. If that is done, then
\nit would be for the accused to prove that there was a
\ngenuine GPA authorizing him to get the sale deed
\nexecuted in favor of the purchasers. The Division
\nBench while dismissing application of the petitioners on
\n29.11.2000 (Crl.M. No. 1790\/2000 in Crl.W.No. 379\/99)
\nhad permitted the State to draw inference admissible
\nunder the law.\n<\/p>\n
 13. To sum up, the case was registered in the year 1995. Police slept over the matter for over four years. The challan was filed on 3rd April, 2000, only after the complainant filed a writ petition in the High Court for expeditious investigation. It was found that the investigations were not carried out on scientific basis. Thereafter further investigations were taken up under the supervision of DCP during the pendency of this petition. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Suricha Rehman remained in judicial custody after 23rd July, 2002. The purchasers are already on bail. The amount of the sale consideration of Rs. 15.10 lacs has already been deposited. No disclosure statement has been brought to my notice to support the prayer for custodial interrogation of the petitioners. They have already supplied attested photocopy of the GPA to the police on which FSL report has been obtained. The house and office search has already been conducted. Seven years have elapsed after registration of FIR. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the objections raised by learned APP for State opposing the grant of bail are not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
 14. In view of the above, petitioners are ordered to be
\nreleased on bail, on each one of them furnishing
\npersonal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000\/- thousand with
\none surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction
\nof the SHO\/Arresting Officer, subject to the condition
\nthat they shall not tamper with the evidence in any way
\nand shall not leave India without prior permission of
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
 It is further directed that the amount of
\nRs. 15.10 lacs deposited by the petitioners with the
\nRegistrar General of this Court shall be kept in a fixed
\ndeposit and would be released only after adjudication of
\nthe rights of the parties by the competent court. The
\ninvestigating agency is directed to complete further
\ninvestigation at the earliest and it would be free to
\nseize the property in accordance with law, if the
\ncircumstances so warrant.\n<\/p>\n
 With the above directions, the petition stands
\ndisposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. Trial
\ncourt is directed to proceed with the trial
\nexpeditiously. Any observations made herein would not
\naffect the merits of the case during trial.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 Equivalent citations: 100 (2002) DLT 348, 2002 (64) DRJ 308 Author: S Agarwal Bench: S Agarwal JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Sections 397\/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 26th and 27th July, 2000 passed by the court […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-201394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":4104,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2"},"wordCount":4104,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2","name":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T01:06:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-rehman-and-anr-vs-state-on-19-july-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Rehman And Anr. vs State on 19 July, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}