*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.02.2024
+
BAIL APPLN. 4210/2023
OMA RAM
Through:
versus
STATE OF GNCTD
Through:
….. Petitioner
Mr. Varun Bhati, Advocate.
….. Respondent
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP with
PSI Vikas Kasana, PS: Mayur Vihar
Phase-I, Delhi.
Mr. Hemant Gulati, Advocate for
Complainant.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
%
JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1.

An application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the
petitioner for bail in FIR No.208/2016, under Sections 454/380/420/
468/471/120B IPC, registered at PS: Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi.
2.

In brief, complainant Rashmi Gulati (a practicing Advocate) alleged
that while she along with her family were abroad, someone trespassed in Flat
No.7-A, Pocket-1, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi which is owned by her. The
said flat is stated to have been allotted to one Narinder Kumar Minocha @ N.
K. Minocha by DDA which was purchased by her on the basis of registered
Power of Attorney in 1989.
3.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
On the other hand, the said property is claimed by Naresh Kumar
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 1 of 6
Jindal and Subhash Kumar Bansal, having purchased the same from Rakesh
Kumar S/o Rajkumar on 02.01.2016. It may be appropriate to notice at this
stage itself that as per case of the prosecution, said Rakesh Kumar is the
applicant / petitioner Oma Ram, who is known by different names, including
Ram Marwari as per Aadhaar Card found in his possession. Further, Naresh
Kumar
Jindal
and
Subhash
Kumar
Bansal
had
identified
the
petitioner/applicant as Rakesh Kumar, who had executed the documents in
their favour for the transfer of said flat. The ownership of the flat is claimed
by them on the basis of chain of documents handed over to them by Rakesh
Kumar @ Oma Ram @ Ram Marwari. Accordingly, the original allottee
Narinder Kumar Minocha @ N. K. Minocha is stated to have executed
documents in favour of Harikishan Dua on 18.05.1982, who in turn
conveyed the property in favour of Sushil Kumar Garg on 26.11.1997.
Finally, the same is stated to have been purchased by Rakesh Kumar
(petitioner) for consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-.
4.

It is pertinent to note that said transfer of property in favour of Rakesh
Kumar is claimed on the basis of notarized Power of Attorney while the
complainant Rashmi Gulati purchased the property on the basis of registered
GPA supported by part payment by way of pay order, which has been
verified by the prosecution.
5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution case is
full of gaps and inconsistencies, since the signature of Narinder Kumar
Minocha (original allottee) were not collected during the course of
investigation, for the purpose of comparing the signatures with the
documents on which the property was initially conveyed in favour of
Harkishan Dua on 18.05.1982. A communication is stated to have been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 2 of 6
made to the office of original allottee Narinder Kumar Minocha for
procuring his original signatures by IO but the same were not finally
obtained since present whereabouts of Narinder Kumar Minocha are
unknown. It is further submitted that petitioner Oma Ram is not Rakesh
Kumar as alleged by the prosecution since no identification proceedings
were held. It is contended that identification made by Naresh Kumar Jindal
and Subhash Kumar Bansal, who purchased the property from Rakesh
Kumar is of no consequence since the identification was made at the Police
Station during course of investigation. Further, no verification regarding
payment of amount by pay order by Sushil Kumar Garg in favour of
Harikishan Dua is stated to have been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an incomplete
charge-sheet was presented at the time of investigation and as such the
petitioner is liable to be admitted to statutory bail though the same was filed
within time on the 90th day. In support of the aforesaid contention it is
submitted that some original documents were to be collected by the IO
during the course of investigation but no steps were taken in this regard
despite filing an application before the concerned Court. Reliance is placed
upon Taj Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) Crl. Misc. (M) 208/1987 decided by
Delhi High Court on 17.07.1987.
6.

On the other hand, application has been vehemently opposed by
learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant
and it is pointed out that cheating and forgery is manifest from the
documents placed on record, since the petitioner has claimed ownership only
on the basis of fabricated notarized documents. It is further submitted that
different names used by the petitioner as Rakesh Kumar and Ram Marwari in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 3 of 6
the Aadhar Card and EC Card reflect that he had an intention to cheat.
Petitioner is also stated to be involved in 46 other cases under different
Sections in different FIRs related to different Police Stations in different
States.
7.

Prima facie this court is of the opinion that no TIP proceedings for
identification of the petitioner were required to be conducted. The execution
of the documents by the petitioner impersonating as Rakesh Kumar in favour
of Naresh Kumar Jindal and Subhash Kumar Bansal must have been carried
over several meetings and as such his identification by Naresh Kumar Jindal
and Subhash Kumar Bansal cannot be disputed.
8.

Merely because the signatures of Narinder Kumar Minocha could not
be collected during investigation, does not cast any doubt on the authenticity
of registered GPA executed in favour of the complainant, who has been in
possession of the property since 1989.
9.

The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that default bail is to
be granted under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. being a statutory right, since
incomplete charge-sheet has been filed, is also without any merit.
Admittedly, in the present case, the charge-sheet has been filed within
the stipulated period of 90 days and cognizance of the offences has been
taken. The statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C. is complied with, if various details prescribed therein are included in
the report. The report is an intimation to the Magistrate that upon
investigation into a cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer has been
able to procure sufficient evidence for the Court to inquire into the offence
and necessary information is being sent to the Court. The report is complete,
if it is accompanied with all the documents and statement of witnesses as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 4 of 6
required by Section 175(5) of Cr.P.C. as held in K. Veeraswami v. Union of
India and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 655.
It may further be noticed that right of the Investigating Officer for
further investigation in terms of sub-section 8 of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is
not taken away only because the charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2)
of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against the accused. Ordinarily though, all the
documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless, if for some plausible reasons, all the documents are not
filed along with the charge-sheet, this itself, would not invalidate or vitiate
the charge-sheet. If upon the material produced along with the charge-sheet,
the Court is satisfied about commission of an offence and thereupon takes
cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is
immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C. is pending or not, qua other accused or for production of some
documents not available at the time of filing of the charge-sheet as held in
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and Another, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 66. The same would not entitle the accused to claim right
to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was an incomplete
charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2)
of Cr.P.C.
10.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the
opinion that the charge-sheet having been filed against the petitioner within
the prescribed limit and cognizance having been taken by the concerned
Court, the petitioner cannot claim the statutory right of default bail under
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. merely because some investigation under Section
173(8) of Cr.P.C. may be required. The authority cited by learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 5 of 6
for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.
Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.

(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 08, 2024/R/sd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:09.02.2024
14:52:31
BAIL APPLN.4210/2023
Page 6 of 6