Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 10 May, 2021
th
Decided on : 17 May, 2021
+ BAIL APPLN. 3882/2020; + BAIL APPLN. 3895/2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 3923/2020
TUSHAR GARG; PULKIT GARG;
AND SATISH GUPTA ..... Petitioner(s)
Through : Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr Advocate
withDr.Ajay Pal Tushir, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for the
State with SI Hawa Singh, PS
Mangolpuri.
Mr.Chander.M.Maini and
Mr.Mayank Maini, Advocates
with complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Through Video Conferencing)
1. These anticipatory bail applications are moved by petitioners
namely Satish Gupta; Tushar Gupta and Pulkit Gupta under Section 438
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr P C ) in case
FIR No. 865/2020 under Section 448/380/506/34 IPC registered at police
station Mangolpuri. Petitioner - Satish Gupta is father; petitioners -
Tushar Gupta and Pulkit Gupta –are his sons.
2. The brief facts are on 11.10.2020 at about 20.28PM a PCR call
was received at police station Mangolpuri. The police reached the spot
BAIL. APPLN Nos.3882, 3895, 3923 of 2020 Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:17.05.2021 15:55
and after preliminary enquiry, the present case FIR was registered on the
complaint of Dr. Vineet Kumar Kohli in which he alleged that he took on
rent the premises bearing No.B-24, Pushpanjali Enclave, Delhi from the
petitioner Satish Gupta for running his school and entered into an
agreement in the year 2018 for a period of five years for monthly rental
of Rs.1.00 lac. The complainant alleged on 11.10.2020 the guard of the
school informed him about 40-50 people had gathered at the school
premises and after breaking open the locks have entered inside the
school. On receipt of this information, the complainant visited the school
and found the locks of the gate broken and belonging of the school worth
Rs.70.00 lacs, including the cash amount, electronics, laptops, printers
and projectors etc were stolen and the petitioners along with their goons
were present at the gate of the school and did not allow the complainant
to enter the school premises. He thus made a call at number 100. The
police reached the spot. The complainant furnished the list of stolen
articles to the Investigating Officer and also provided the copy of the rent
agreement dated 18.03.2020 between the petitioner – Satish Gupta and
himself. The statement of witnesses were recorded and during the course
of investigation it was found on the date of the incident, the possession
of the premises in question was with the complainant . The statements of
the Principal (Coordinator), teacher of the school; book and stationery
supplier were recorded. It transpired the books and uniform were
supplied to the complainant from 02.03.2020 to 20.03.2020 for the total
sum of Rs.14,75,985/-.
3. During the course of investigation, one Vikas, an employee of the
petitioner Satish Gupta was arrested on 24.11.2020 and at his instance on
BAIL. APPLN Nos.3882, 3895, 3923 of 2020 Page 2 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:17.05.2021 15:55
26.11.2020, in the presence of the complainant, from the first floor of
house bearing No. C-89, Pocket-13, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi various
printed prospectus, leaflets, advertisement items, folders, educational
activity box, printing books of play classes, and printed school bags etc
were recovered at the instance of Vikas. The estimated cost of all the
stolen item recovered was Rs.20.00 lacs.
4. The subject property belong to petitioner – Satish Gupta. It was
alleged by co-accused Vikas the part of the stolen articles are lying with
the petitioners herein, but they neither joined investigation nor could they
be arrested and even the proceedings under Section 82 Cr P C are now
complete against them.
5. The investigation thus show the possession of the premises was
with the complainant and he was running a play school namely Starkids
there till he was forcibly dispossessed.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued a) even on
10.03.2020 the complainant had lodged a false complaint and b) the
possession of tenanted premises was never taken by the petitioners and
rather the complainant was unable to pay the arrears of rental, thus he
insisted his assets/articles be kept at some safe place so that in future it
may be released to him against payment of rental arrears. It was also
argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the real dispute
between the parties is qua payment of pending rentals and the petitioners
have not taken forcible possession of the property.
BAIL. APPLN Nos.3882, 3895, 3923 of 2020 Page 3 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:17.05.2021 15:55
7. Considering the complaint, allegedly acts of the petitioner
described in the status report based on examination of various witnesses
which reveal the possession of the premises was with the complainant till
it was forcibly taken by the petitioners, hence the submissions of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not of any help to them to
justify their acts and omission.
8. Though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued in
March, 2020 also the complainant had made a police complaint regarding
theft of his articles and it was found to be false, but the record shows the
first incident was reported by the complainant to local police of police
station Mangolpuri vide DD No. 79A, 80A and 83A and a written
complaint dated 16.03.2020 was registered at DD No. 6B dated
17.03.2020 in respect of forcible entering into the premises to dispossess
the complainant and the police did not help. Nevertheless, the statement
of witnesses recorded as of now show the complainant was actually in
possession of the premises till he was dispossessed.
9. Further, there may be arrears to be paid by complainant, but it does
not give any right to the petitioners herein to act in a manner they had
acted. They had forcibly entered into the premises and had allegedly
stolen/taken away the articles, part of which stand recovered at the
instance of co-accused Vikas from the house of petitioner(s). The
proceedings under Section 82 Cr P C have also been concluded. The
conduct of petitioners disentitle them from any discretionary relief. The
applications are, thus , dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
BAIL. APPLN Nos.3882, 3895, 3923 of 2020 Page 4 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:17.05.2021 15:55
10. Nothing observed above shall be treated as an opinion on merits of
respective claims of either side as observations are made only for the
purpose of disposal of these petitions.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MAY 17, 2021
M
BAIL. APPLN Nos.3882, 3895, 3923 of 2020 Page 5 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRADEEP SHARMA
Signing Date:17.05.2021 15:55