Veena Rani v. State NCT Of Delhi
$-7 to 9 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAILAPPLN.
1999/2015 MRS RADHA RANI Petitioner Thi'ough Mr.Prasoon Kumar & Mr.Deepak Chander Pal, Advs.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent Through Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
SI Amarjeet Singh PS Sangam Vihar Mr.Pranav Kanti, Adv. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2064/2015 LAXMI DEVI Petitioner Through Mr.Prasoon Kumar & Mr.Deepak Chander Pal, Advs.
versus STATENCT OF DELHI Respondent Through Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
SI Amarjeet Singh PS Sangam Vihar Mr.Pranav Kanti, Adv. for complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 2066/2015 VEENA RANI Petitioner Through Mr.PrasoonKumar& Mr.Deepak Chander Pal, Advs.
versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent By:AMULYA
Through Mr.Raghuvinder Varma, APP.
SI Amarjeet Singh PS Sangam Vihar Mr.Pranav Kanti, Adv. for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORDER
% 22.12.2015 The petitioners are own sisters of the complainant Ramesh Kumar. They seek anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.560/2015 (PS Sangam Vihar) instituted for offences under Sections 420/506/34 of the IPG at the instance of Ramesh Kumar, one of the brothers of the petitioners. Late Babu Lai, father'of the petitioners and complainant, had acquired a property namely House No.169 D, Mandir Wali Gali, Sangam Vihar, Delhi-62.
He left behind six legal heirs namely the three petitioners (daughters) and three sons, one of whom is the complainant of the present case.
Late Babu Lai died on 13.08.2009.
According to the FIR, admittedly, the petitioners were permitted to stay in the house owned and acquired by Late Babu Lai as they were in need of accommodation. Later, the complainant learnt that the aforesaid property has been sold to a third party without informing either the complainant or other legal heirs.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the aforesaid sale of the house which was acquired by their father, was on the basis of a Will which is said to have been executed by the widow of late Babu Lai, i.e. the mother of the petitioners and the complainant. The aforesaid intestate Will is in dispute.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant further asserts that if the late mother of the petitioners and the complainant had actually executed a Will, there was no necessity for the petitioners to have arranged for other papers viz. GPA Agreement, receipts etc. to show their bonafides. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that during the life time of the mother, the petitioners being the heirs of late Babu Lai were staying in that house.
A false claim is stated to be put up by one of their brothers. The matter requires investigation.
However, considering the fact that the petitioners are the sisters of the complainant and were admittedly allowed to stay in the house, which has now been sold by them, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
The petitioners, in the event of their arrest, would be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/SHO of the concerned police station.
The petitioners are directed to participate in the investigation. They are required to be present before the investigating agency as and when they are summoned by him for interrogation. The petitioners would also be duty bound to furnishall the papers to the investigatingofficerso that respective claims of the heirs of late Babu Lai could be ascertained. The bail applicationsare allowedand disposed of accordingly. Dasti.
Il ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J DECEMBER 22,2015 ab