Surender Jeet Singh Sokhi v. State

ORDER

25.11.2011 Both these applications are filed by the petitioners Jasdeep Sokhi and Surender Jeet Singh Sokhi for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in case FIR No. 238/2009, under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/506/34 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. --------------- - IPC, P.S. Sector 23, Dwarka. The petitioner Jasdeep Sokhi is the son of the petitioner Surender Jeet Singh Sokhi. They both were staying in Flat No. B-12, 4th Floor of Classic Apartment, Plot No. 11, Sector 22, Dwarka as tenants. The FIR was registered against them on the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC on the complaint made by one Vimal Sabharwal. The allegations against the petitioners are that they had agreed to sell the aforesaid flat to the complainant claiming themselves to be the owners of the said flat. They had made some papers of ownership of said flat. The aforesaid flat was agreed to be sold to the complainant and an agreement was executed and a sum ofRs. 15 lakhs was taken from him. The agreement to sell was signed by the petitioner Surender Jeet Singh Sokhi. Though the petitioners denied the signatures of the Surender Jeet Singh Sokhi on the agreement to sell, but from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, it stands confirmed that the agreement to sell was signed by him. It was also verified during investigation that the owner of the said flat was one Ashok Malhan and the petitioner were his tenants in the said flat. The petitioners gave the cheques of Rs. 15 lakhs to the complainant but the same on presentation were also dishonoured. It is noticed that these kind of cases are on high rise. Keeping in view the nature and seriousness of offence committed by the petitioners, learned ASJ also dismissed their application of anticipatory bail vide his order dated 171h September, 2011. This was apparently case of deliberate act of cheating and forgery committed by the petitioners. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit them on bail. Bail applications are accordingly dismissed. NOVEMBER 25, 2011 akb M.L. MEHTA,J l

&6 * IN THE IDGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELID + BAIL APPLN. 1374/2011 JASDEEP SOKHI versus STATE WITH Through: ..... Petitioner Mr.Narendra Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP. BAIL APPLN. 1375/2011 SURENDER JEET SINGH SOKHI ..... Petitioner versus STATE Through: Mr.Narendra Kalra, Advocate ith Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA