Praveen Babbar v. State

ORDER %

22.07.2013 Cri.M.A.No.10682/2013 (Exemption) in B.A.No.1286/2013 Crl.M.A.No.10683/2013 (Exemption) in B.A.No.1287/2013 Allowed subject to alljust exceptions. Bail Application No. 1286/2013 Bail Application No. 1287/2013 Pre-arrest bail is sought in FIR No. 403/2011 registered under Bail Appln. Nos. 1286 & 1287 of 2013 Page 1 Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Section 420/120-B/471/467/34IPG at PS K.N.Katju Marg, Delhi, by petitioners on the ground that petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence. Since the above-captionedtwo applicationsarise out of one FIR, they have been heardtogetherand are beingdisposedof by this common order. Learnedcounselfor petitionerscontendsthatreceiptof6"' September, 2009 clearly indicatesthat there was no cheatingon the part of petitionersas they had disclosed that the property in question was mortgaged to bank and the complainant was to clear the mortgage, and instead of complainant coming forward to clear the mortgage by paying bank dues, she has got registered a false FIR against petitioners. It is submitted that the subject matter of FIR discloses that it is purely a civil dispute and so petitioners deserve bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits that petitioners had connived to forge the Conveyance Deed in the name of one Dewan Chand, a fictitious person and had mortgaged the property in question with the bank to obtain loan of ? 30 lacs on the basis of forged documents and receipt of 6^ September, 2009 strongly relied upon by petitioners, per se discloses cheating as hand-written portion on the bottom of this receipt was subsequently written by petitioners just to wriggle out of the offence committed. It is submitted that custodiaL interrogation of petitioners is required and that Ajay Verma co-accused of petitioner is absconding. Since sale deed in respect of property in question has been executed, therefore, there is no basis to conclude that complainant had not paid the entire sale transaction. Custodial interrogation of petitioners appears to be Bail Appln. Nos. 1286 & 1287 of 2013 Page 2 / } / necessary to explore the forgery committed to deceive the complainant. Natureof offencecommittedpersuadesthis Courtto declinepre-arrestbail to petitioners. Accordingly,both the applicationsare dismissedwhile refrainingto commentupon the merits of this case, lest it may prejudicepetitionersat trial. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge JULY 22, 2013 vn BailAppln.Nos.1286&1287of2013 Page 3

m \ $-13 & 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1286/2013 PRAVEEN BABBAR Petitioner + Through: Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, Advocate versus STATE Through: BAIL APPLN. 1287/2013 ARCHANA BABBAR ' Through: versus Respondent Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector Yashpal Singh, PS K.N.Katju Marg Petitioner Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, Advocate STATE Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Inspector, Yashpal Singh, PS K.N.Katju Marg CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR