[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Sunaina vs The State on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 602/2024(disposed of case)
SUNAINA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Manish Malik, Mr. Vikas Saini and
Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP.
SI Krishan Kumar, PS: Bawana.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 19.03.2025
CRL.M.A. 8308/2025 (seeking restoration)
1. Through this application, the Applicant seeks restoration of the bail
application, which was dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 10 th
March, 2025.
2. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed and the bail application is restored to its original number.
3. Disposed of.
4. With the consent of counsel for parties, the bail application is taken
up for hearing today itself.
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024
5. The present application filed under Section 438 of the Code of
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:52
Criminal Procedure, 1973 1 seeks grant of anticipatory bail in the
proceedings arising from FIR No. 497/2016 dated 21 st November, 2016
registered at P.S. Bawana for the offences under Sections 384/506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2
6. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:
6.1 The present case was registered at PS Bawana, Delhi, based on the
statement of Ms. Rajbala, wherein she alleged that Sunaina (the Applicant
herein) had been falsely implicating her son, along with several other young
men, in order to extort money from them. During investigation, Vineeta, (the
Applicant in BAIL APPLN. 600/2024) who is the sister of Sunaina, has also
been issued notice under section 41A of the CrPC.
6.2 During the course of investigation, it was brought to the notice of the
Prosecution that, a quashing petition filed by the Applicant was pending
before this Court, enclosing an affidavit on behalf of the Complainant,
stating that she had no objections to the quashing of the impugned FIR .
When the Complainant was questioned in this regard, she denied executing
any compromise and also denied the signature on the affidavit filed before
this Court. The specimen of signatures i.e., admitted signatures and
photocopy of disputed affidavit were sent to FSL for expert opinion.
However, FSL required the original affidavit, and not the photocopy in order
to render an opinion.
6.3 Therefore, this Court vide order dated 09 th April, 2024 issued a
direction for transmission of the original affidavit dated 26 th September,
2018 allegedly filed on behalf of the Complainant in CRL.M.C. 4987/2018
1 “Cr.P.C”
2 “IPC”
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:52
to FSL, Rohini, for rendering a report on the authenticity of the signatures .
6.4 Subsequently, this Court issued a reminder to the FSL for ensuring
compliance of the aforesaid order. Further an intimation letter was also sent
to the director of FSL Rohini regarding the FSL report of authenticity of the
signatures.
7. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant, contends that
the Applicant has been falsely and unjustly implicated in the present case
and has no involvement in the alleged offence. He submits that the
Applicant comes from a respectable family and has no prior convictions. He
further states that although the present FIR was registered in 2016, the
Applicant was only served a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in the first
week of December 2023. The Counsel argues that there is no prima facie
case against the Applicant and that she is ready and willing to cooperate
with the investigation. In light of these circumstances, he requests that
anticipatory bail be granted to the Applicant.
8. At the outset, a crucial aspect of the present case, that needs to be
highlighted pertains to the Applicant’s assertion regarding the
Complainant’s purported willingness to settle the matter and the alleged
affidavit, filed on her behalf in this regard in the quashing petition (Crl.M.C.
4987/2018). In this context, the Trial Court, while rejecting the Applicant’s
request for anticipatory bail, specifically noted that the Complainant had
denied both the authenticity of the affidavit annexed to the bail application
as well as the signatures affixed on it. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
informed the Trial Court that a comparison of the Complainant’s signatures
on the affidavit with those made before the Trial Court revealed that the
signatures on the affidavit did not belong to the Complainant , suggesting
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
that the Applicant had submitted a false affidavit in an attempt to have the
FIR quashed. In light of the foregoing, the Trial Court dismissed the
Applicant’s anticipatory bail application, vide order dated 13 th February,
2024, with the following observations:
“Fresh reply filed by the IO.
Arguments on the bail application heard.
Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that the applicant
is not a previous convict and having no nexus with the commission of the
alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
further submitted that applicant has nothing to do with the alleged offence
and has been implicated with ulterior motives. He submitted that applicant
has never committed the alleged offence and the present FIR is an after
thought. He further submitted that the present FIR has been lodged by the
complainant just to tarnish image of the applicant. He submitted that the
present FIR was registered in 2016 and the applicant has been involved in
the present FIR by the complainant with evil motive. He further submitted
that complainant has given an affidavit for quashing of the present FIR as
they have settled the matter amicably. It is prayed by Ld. Counsel for
accused that accused be granted anticipatory bail in the present case as
she is ready to abide with any condition imposed by the court or to give
direction to IO/SHO PS Bawana not to take coercive steps against
applicant in the present FIR.
Ld. Addl. PP for State has strongly opposed the bail stating that
the allegations levelled against applicant/accused are henious in nature
being punishable u/s384/389/506/34 1IPC and custodial interrogation of
accused/applicant is required. He further argued that as per the reply filed
by the IO, complainant submitted during investigation that she has never
compromised the matter and never signed any such affidavit in that
regard. He further submitted that investigation is still in progress qua the
alleged forged signatures on the affidavit.
On enquiry made by the Court regarding the aspect of settlement
affidavit filed before the Hon’ble High Court, the complainant stated that
affidavit attached as annexure “C” with the present bail application and
signatures appended at points A and B on the affidavit do not belong to
her. Separate statement of complainant is recorded in this regard.
Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant submitted that the said
affidavit was handed to him by Sh. Rajbir Singh Ld. Counsel for
complainant in other case and that the complainant has even put
appearance in the Mediation proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court
on the basis of the aforesaid affidavit bearing her signatures. Ld. Counsel.
for the accused/applicant has filed ordersheets dated 24.10.2019,
06.02.2020 and 14.12.2023 of the Hon’ble High Court in the Crl. MCBAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
4987/2018 reflecting the presence of complainant and her son Sh. Manoj,
who is present in the court today also.
Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the comparison of the
signatures of the complainant present on the said affidavit with the
signatures made today shows that the signatures on the affidavit do not
belong to the complainant. He further argued that the interim protection
had been granted to the accused keeping in view the aspect of pendency
of the quashing petition wherein the said false affidavit was filed.
Record shows that the investigation in the present case is at the
initial stage and the accused is alleged to have committed extortion which
is a grave offence. Furthermore, a grave doubt has arisen on the very
authenticity of the affidavit filed in the quashing petition which requires
detailed inquiry/investigation.
Considering the present facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the initial stage of investigation, this court is not inclined to grant
the anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused at this stage.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of with the direction
to the SHO concern to file a detailed report with the concerned Ld. MM
with respect to the authenticity of the aforesaid affidavit and to apprise the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi regarding the proceedings conducted today.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.”
[Emphasis supplied]
9. In this regard, on 9 th April, 2024, this Court was also apprised about
Complainant disputing her signatures on the affidavit and her categorical
denial of compromising the matter. However, the Applicant insisted that the
settlement was genuine and that the investigation in this regard was
pending. The APP for State submitted that the investigation into the
authenticity of the signatures was not proceeding as the FSL was unable to
render an opinion without the original affidavit. Accordingly, this Court
directed the transmission of the original affidavit dated 26 th September
2018, allegedly filed by the Complainant, in Crl. MC. 4987/2018 to the
FSL, to conduct an examination of the signatures on the affidavit and
submit a report. Subsequently, on the receipt of the FSL report, this Court
issued the following directions on 11 th December, 2024:
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
“1. The present petitions have been filed for grant of anticipatory bail
in case bearing FIR 497/2016 Dated 21.11.2016 registered u/s 384/506
IPC at PS: Bawana.
2. This Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed an order that no
coercive actions be taken against the Applicants, subject to their
continuing to join the investigation.
3. Vide order dated 09.04.2024, the Court noted that anticipatory
bail application moved before the Trial Court shows that one of the
grounds taken by the applicants was that a quashing petition was filed in
this Court being CRL.M.C. 4987/2018 titled ‘Sunaina v. State and Anr.’
wherein the complainant was stated to have filed an affidavit in support of
the petition giving no objection to the quashing of the FIR. Before the
Trial Court, complainant however disputed her signatures on the affidavit
and stated that she had never compromised the matter or signed on the
affidavit. However, the petitioner insisted that the complainant had settled
the matter.
4. This Court taking into account this controversy sent the original
affidavit in CRL.M.C. 4987/2018 to the FSL and directed that a report be
filed in a sealed cover to the Registrar General of this Court. In the
meanwhile, CRL.M.C. 4987/2018 was dismissed and withdrawn on
01.04.2024.
6. Perusal of the FSL report dated 30.04.2024 states “the aforesaid
divergences are fundamental in nature and beyond the range of natural
vibrations and intended disguise and when considered collectively
indicate that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped
and marked SI to S5 & A1 to A10 did not write the red enclosed
signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q2.”
7. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the FSL report,
the interim protection granted to the petitioner against the contemplate
may not be continued.
8. On behalf of the petitioner, an adjournment has been sought as
main counsel is not available today.
9. In view of the FSL report, the Court considers that the interim
protection granted to the petitioner cannot be continued, hence the interim
protection granted vide order dated 09.02.2024 stands withdrawn.
10. In view of the fact that an accommodation has been asked for by
learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that main counsel is not
available, list on 10.03.2025.”
10. A prima facie conclusion can be drawn from the FSL report that the
signatures on the affidavit, which the Applicant had relied upon to persuade
the Court that the parties had jointly filed a quashing petition, were not those
of the Complainant. It bears emphasising that the Prosecution as well as the
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
Complainant had both consistently maintained that the signatures on the
affidavit did not belong to the Complainant. However, the Counsel for
Applicant insisted that the signatures affixed to the original affidavit were
genuine. The Applicant has specifically stated in the present petition that a
quashing petition (Crl. MC. 4987/2018) was pending before this Court ,
clearly attempting to take benefit of the same, to seek pre-arrest bail.
However, according to the FSL report, the signatures on the affidavit are not
those of the Complainant. In light of this development, it prima facie
appears that the Applicant has grossly abused the process of law by
submitting a false affidavit, misrepresenting that the Complainant had
consented to the quashing of the FIR registered against her. Such attempts to
mislead the Court constitute a clear abuse of the judicial process. Although,
the Applicant has also raised other grounds for seeking pre-arrest bail, it is
well-established that courts may decline to exercise their discretion in favor
of an applicant, if the application is lacking bona fides.3 The Supreme Court
has consistently ruled that a party misleading the court, is not entitled to any
relief from the court.4 In light of these circumstances, the Court is not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant, as it cannot condone
actions that compromise the integrity of legal proceedings, and amount to an
abuse of the legal process.
11. Accordingly, the Court finds no merit in the present application, and
the same is dismissed.
12. Before parting, this Court notes that the Trial Court in its order dated
3 Order dated 10 th June, 2022 passed in CRM-M-26229-2022 (O&M) titled Deen Mohd. V State of
Haryana
4 Hari Narain vs. Badri Dass, AIR 1963. S.C. 1558. See also: Welcome Hotel vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1983) 4 SCC 574
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
13th February, 2024 had directed the concerned SHO to file a detailed report
with the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with respect to the aforesaid
affidavit. As the FSL report has now been received, the concerned IO is
directed to apprise the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate of the FSL report.
13. With the above direction, the present application is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MARCH 19, 2025
d.negi
BAIL APPLN. 602/2024 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 18/04/2025 at 21:19:53
[ad_2]
Source link