Delhi High Court – Orders
Uttam Kumar @ Rinku Lala vs The State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~3 & 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 186/2025
UTTAM KUMAR @ RINKU LALA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Laxmi Narain Atri, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP.
SI Jitender Kumar, P.S. Anand
Parbat.
+ BAIL APPLN. 241/2025
TILAKDHARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Laxmi Narain Atri, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP.
SI Jitender Kumar, P.S. Anand
Parbat.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.03.2025
1. The present applications under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (earlier Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19732) seeks anticipatory bail in proceedings arising from FIR
No. 0270/2024 dated 14th June, 2024, under Sections 255, 406, 420, 467,
1
“BNSS”
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, registered at P.S.
Anand Parbat. As both the instant applications arise from the same FIR and
involve co-accused persons asserting overlapping grounds for relief, they are
being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. The case of the prosecution, as gathered from the complaint and the
material on record, is briefly summarised below:
2.1 A complaint was received in P.S. Anand Parbat from Mr. Swami Nath
Pandey (the Complainant), who claimed to be the owner/licensee of property
bearing shop no. M 70-B, Gali no. 11, Anand Parbat, Delhi4 admeasuring 6
feet X 7 feet. He produced ownership documents in support of his claim. He
alleged that Mr. Tilak Dhari, the Applicant in BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 was
inducted as a tenant in a portion of the said property, at a monthly rent of
INR 15,000/-. However, no formal rent agreement to this effect was
executed between the parties.
2.2 The Complainant alleges that on 3rd April, 2024, he learned that Mr.
Tilak Dhari had attempted to install an electricity meter on the premises
issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited5. Although the initial application
for an electricity connection was rejected, subsequently, during the
Complainant’s absence, an electricity meter bearing CA No. 154211419 was
unlawfully installed at the premises. The connection was obtained in the
name of Mr. Uttam Kumar – the Applicant in BAIL APPLN. 186/2025,
allegedly on the strength of forged ownership documents. The Complainant
further asserts that Mr. Tilak Dhari, along with his sons (Uttam Kumar, Ravi2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
“IPC”
4
“Subject property”
5
“BSES”
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
Kumar, and Manish @ Shiva), later threatened him and demanded that he
vacate the property, which continues to remain in his lawful possession.
2.3 On the basis of the above compliant, FIR No. 0270/2024 was
registered at P.S. Anand Prabat, on 14th June 2024 under Sections 255, 406,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
2.4 During the investigation, the Investigating Officer sought details from
BSES regarding the application for the electricity connection, including
documents submitted by Mr. Tilak Dhari. In response, BSES produced a
copy of a General Power of Attorney6 dated 21st January, 2022, purportedly
issued by one Mr. Md. Tahir in favour of Mr. Tilak Dhari. The document
bore E-Stamp certificate no. IN-DL55945436442569V. Upon verification
with the records of E-Stock Holding, it was confirmed that no such
certificate existed. The said GPA was therefore prima facie found to be
forged and had allegedly been used by the Applicants to procure the
electricity connection fraudulently. BSES further confirmed that Tilak
Dhari, had also submitted a No Objection Certificate in favour of his son,
Uttam Kumar, for installation of the meter.
2.5 The investigation also revealed that in 2023, Tilak Dhari had himself
lodged a complaint at P.S. Anand Parbat, wherein he admitted that he had no
ownership documents for the property in question. He further disclosed that
the electricity meter had been secured by paying a bribe to one Mr. Gulshan
Kumar, an individual associated with BSES. During questioning, Gulshan
Kumar denied this allegation, stating that he was merely a contractual
recovery agent and had no role in issuing new connections.
2.6 The IO also obtained a formal response from BSES detailing the
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 3 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
procedure for installing new electricity connections. As per Regulation 10 of
the DERC Regulations, 2017, an applicant must provide proof of identity,
proof of ownership or occupancy, and a No Objection Certificate. While
BSES clarified that it does not verify the authenticity of the documents
submitted, it confirmed that a site inspection is conducted prior to
installation. In the present case, it was reiterated that the connection was
issued on the basis of the forged GPA.
2.7 The ownership records obtained from the SDM, Kanjhawala,
confirmed that the property stands in the name of the Complainant. It was
also noted that the Applicants’ mobile number is linked to the electricity
connection at the premises and that they continue to receive bills, thereby
evidencing their use and benefit from the disputed connection. These facts,
taken together, point toward the Applicants’ deliberate use of forged
documentation.
2.8 The Applicants were called upon to join the investigation and produce
the original GPA allegedly used to obtain the meter. Despite such a
direction, they failed to furnish the document. This non-cooperation has
been viewed with seriousness, particularly given the nature of the allegations
and the forged instrument involved. The prosecution has therefore strongly
opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the risk of suppression, misuse,
and potential interference with the investigation.
3. Counsel for the Applicants submits the following grounds in support
of the plea for anticipatory bail:
3.1 The Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The
Applicants are respectable persons of the locality who run a modest tea stall6
“GPA”
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
at the subject property. The property was originally let out in 1991 to Tilak
Dhari’s father by one Mr. Puran Chand, the then owner. Following Mr.
Puran Chand’s demise, his son, Mr. Priti Pal, began collecting rent.
However, in March 2004, Mr. Priti Pal, in collusion with another tenant, Mr.
Gurmukh Singh, allegedly began exerting pressure on the Applicants’
family to vacate the premises. In response, Tilak Dhari’s father instituted
Civil Suit No. 48/2004 against them. The suit was eventually disposed of in
view of a compromise arrived at on 20th July, 2004.
3.2 Thereafter, Tilak Dhari’s father purchased the subject property from
Mr. Priti Pal for a sum of ₹20,000/- in cash on 20th December, 2004.
However, before any formal documentation for sale or transfer of title could
be executed, Mr. Priti Pal passed away.
3.3 Since then, the Applicants and their family have been in peaceful
possession of the premises and have been operating their tea shop without
any challenge to their occupation or claims of title.
3.4 The Applicants categorically deny having submitted any forged GPA
to BSES for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection. According to
them, as the tea shop lacked an electricity supply, they sought assistance
from one Mr. Gulshan Kumar – who asserted himself to be an employee of
BSES and frequented their stall – to help secure a connection. For this
purpose, they handed over basic identification documents of the Applicant,
Uttam Kumar, and no more.
3.5 Mr. Gulshan Kumar, without the knowledge or consent of the
Applicants, fabricated a forged GPA and submitted it to BSES in support of
the electricity application. Upon discovering this, the Applicants
immediately lodged a complaint at P.S. Anand Parbat, narrating the
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
circumstances and specifically naming Mr. Gulshan Kumar as having acted
unauthorisedly.
3.6 Pertinently, Tilak Dhari also filed a Civil Suit being CS
SCJ/1422/2023 titled Tilak Dhari v. Swami Nath Pandey & Others, against
the Complainant seeking declaratory reliefs and injunction in respect of the
subject property. In the said suit which is currently pending, the Civil Judge,
vide order dated 10th January, 2024, granted protection in favour of the
Applicant – Tilak Dhari. It must be noted that in the pleadings of the said
suit, no claim was made by Tilak Dhari on the basis of the alleged GPA,
which further belies the theory of fabrication by the Applicants.
3.7 On the contrary, it was the Complainant who, in the course of the
said civil proceedings, moved an application under Section 340 of the CrPC
on the basis of the impugned GPA. However, the said application was
withdrawn, as recorded in the order dated 11th September, 2024.
3.8 The alleged forged GPA has not been recovered from the possession
of the Applicants at any stage. The Applicants maintain that they were never
in possession of such a document, and it was created without their
knowledge, allegedly at the instance of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, acting in
connivance with the Complainant to falsely implicate them.
4. The Court has considered the submissions of the Applicants,
Complainant and the State. On 17th January, 2025 and 21st January, 2025,
this Court granted interim protection from coercive action to both
Applicants, subject to their cooperation in the investigation. It has since been
confirmed that the Applicants have joined the investigation. However, they
did not produce the alleged forged GPA, maintaining that they have never
been in possession of such a document and reiterating that it was fabricated
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 6 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
by one Mr. Gulshan Kumar, without their knowledge or involvement.
5. The question as to who executed the alleged forged GPA is a matter
that must be determined upon completion of investigation and during trial.
At this stage, however, the Court finds prima facie merit in the Applicants’
contention that – had they authored or relied upon such a document, they
would reasonably have referred to it in support of their ownership claim in
Civil Suit No. CS SCJ/1422/2023. The absence of any reference to the GPA
in their pleadings lends some weight to their assertion that they may not
have played a role in its creation or use. That said, no conclusive view can
be taken in these proceedings, and the issue shall be adjudicated by the Trial
Court based on the outcome of the investigation and the evidence that may
be led by the parties.
6. Further, it is not disputed that the Applicants themselves lodged a
complaint with the police, alleging that their names had been misused by
Mr. Gulshan Kumar for the purpose of obtaining the electricity connection
through forged documentation. This conduct, in the prima facie opinion of
the Court, demonstrates bona fides on the part of the Applicants.
Additionally, they have joined the investigation and provided specimen
signatures for the purpose of forensic analysis of the GPA in question.
7. In light of the above and considering that the Applicants have
cooperated with the ongoing investigation and have assured continued
assistance, and further, as the APP for the State has indicated that their
interrogation may no longer be necessary, the present applications are
allowed. In the event of arrest, the Applicants shall be released on bail upon
furnishing separate personal bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- each, with one
surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, subject
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
to the following conditions:
a. The Applicants shall join and fully cooperate with the investigation as
and when directed by the IO;
b. The Applicants shall not leave the boundaries of the country without
informing the IO/ SHO concerned;
c. The Applicants shall not contact the witnesses or tamper with the
evidence in any manner whatsoever;
d. The Applicants shall give their mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO and shall keep their mobile phones switched on at all times;
8. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the Applicants, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial or be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits
of the case.
10. The applications are allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 28, 2025/as
BAIL APPLN. 186/2025 & BAIL APPLN. 241/2025 Page 8 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/04/2025 at 21:57:50
[ad_1]
Source link