{"id":1546,"date":"2024-02-21T20:50:51","date_gmt":"2024-02-21T15:20:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1546"},"modified":"2024-02-21T20:50:51","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T15:20:51","slug":"delhi-hc-holds-that-documents-not-filed-along-with-the-charge-sheet-itself-would-not-invalidate-vitiate-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-hc-holds-that-documents-not-filed-along-with-the-charge-sheet-itself-would-not-invalidate-vitiate-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC holds that documents not filed along with the charge-sheet itself would not invalidate\/vitiate it"},"content":{"rendered":"

OMA RAM\u00a0 [<\/strong>Petitioner]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 <\/strong>STATE OF GNCTD\u00a0 [<\/strong>Respondent]<\/h1>\n

BAIL APPLN. 4210\/2023<\/p>\n

(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> An application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (\u2018Cr.P.C.\u2019) 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.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present petition is liable to be dismissed under the present circumstances?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

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 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present petition and held that, \u201cthis 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 for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OMA RAM\u00a0 [Petitioner]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 STATE OF GNCTD\u00a0 [Respondent] BAIL APPLN. 4210\/2023 (CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)   Facts: An application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (\u2018Cr.P.C.\u2019) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for bail in FIR No.208\/2016, under Sections 454\/380\/420\/ 468\/471\/120B IPC, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1547,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1546"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1549,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1546\/revisions\/1549"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}