Shaukat Ali Vs. the State

Shaukat Ali vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 11, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/697592

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/697592
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Decided On: May 11, 2005
Case Number: Bail Application 116/2005 and FIR No. 306/2004
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaukat Ali

Advocate C.L. Gupta, Adv

Respondent

The State

Advocate Pawan Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 120(2005)DLT224

Excerpt

- - 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer......question, has also filed a civil suit in which a status quo order has been passed.2. the learned counsel for the state opposed the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage claiming that the present petitioner was the main person involved in these offences. he submitted that upon a reading of the disclosure statement of mohd hanif, which, according to him, although inadmissible, would be looked into at the time of consideration of the bail application. from that statement, it appears that the entire transaction was initiated by jhangir, who, apparently was in some sort of possession of this property and wanted to legitimatisehis possession over the same and it is in this context that he involved mohd hanif and the present petitioner.3. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said jehangir has also been granted anticipatory bail.4. in this view of the case, the present petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.this application stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is 2707, Kucha Chelan Gali, Masjid Kale Khan, Delhi. The complainant has alleged herself to be the owner of this property and it is the case for the prosecution that one Mohd Hanif forged certain documents, including a General Power of Attorney in his favor and on the basis of that he transferred the said property to the present petitioner (Shaukat Ali), who, in turn, transferred the same in the names of Shamima Begum, Daraf Khan Begum and Rahat Khan. The learned counsel pointed out that Mohd Hanif had already been admitted to regular bail. Insofar as Shamima Begum, Darafshan Begum and Rahat Khan are concerned, they are on anticipatory bail and so also two other persons Moh Khalil Ahmed and Mohd Sharif who were the attesting witnesses in the transaction. It is further stated that one Jehangir, who is said to be the husband of Shamima Begum and is said to be in possession of the property in question, has also filed a civil suit in which a status quo order has been passed.

2. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage claiming that the present petitioner was the main person involved in these offences. He submitted that upon a reading of the disclosure statement of Mohd Hanif, which, according to him, although inadmissible, would be looked into at the time of consideration of the bail application. From that statement, it appears that the entire transaction was initiated by Jhangir, who, apparently was in some sort of possession of this property and wanted to legitimatisehis possession over the same and it is in this context that he involved Mohd Hanif and the present petitioner.

3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said Jehangir has also been granted anticipatory bail.

4. In this view of the case, the present petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

This application stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Shaukat Ali vs The State Same Subject Property Same Judge Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

Property