M/S Ganesh Industries v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR
$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: April 07, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 1246/2015 M/S GANESH INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. C.S. S. Tomar, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through:
Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Sudhir Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL) Crl.M.A.4580/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 1246/2015 Impugned order of 5th August, 2014 grants regular bail to respondent-accused in FIR No.183/2010 under Sections 420/467/468/ 471/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing (North), Delhi while noting that the property in question already stands mutated in the name of respondent-accused and that it appears to be a case of coaccused-Rohtas (who is absconding) having duped respondent-accused. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that CRL.M.C. 1246/2015
respondent-accused was the main accused in forging of documents and the said Rohtas is a fictitious person and the criminal conspiracy has been hatched and therefore, grant of bail to respondent-accused is totally unjustified.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality but the original documents vide which the property had changed hands from co-accusedJagdish Gupta are not forthcoming. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, I find that the factum of respondent-accused joining investigation is not disputed and it is not the case of respondent-accused that the original documents of property in question executed by coaccused-Jagdish Gupta in favour of co-accused-Rohtas are in possession of respondent-accused.
So far as the observations made in the impugned order of respondent-accused being duped by co-accused-Rohtas is concerned, the same is uncalled for. In any case, any observation made in the impugned order will not be taken as a reflection on the merits of this case at trial. Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 07, 2015 s CRL.M.C. 1246/2015