Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) THESE are two applications under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioners, who are. inter alia,alleged to have trespassed into a portion of property No. 17, Darya Ganj,new Delhi and against whom First Information Report has been registeredunder Sections 420/468/471/448 IPC. ( 2 ) THE allegations, relevant for the disposal of the petitions, brieflystated are an under : ( 3 ) THE Baptist Union of North India (for short buni ) which isaffiliated to the Baptist Church Trust Association, Calcutta (for short bcta ), was founded in the year 1947 and has been managing and administering the properties of the latter in North India. Property No. 17, Daryaganj is one of the properties said to be belonging to bcta. . On 6/12/1976 BUNI headed by Dr. David Walter was registered with the Registrarof Societies under the Societies Registration Act. 1860. On 3/01/1991another body, namely, the original Baptist Union of North India (for short obuni ) beaded by Shri S. Prasad was registered as a society by theregistrar of Societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 1/01/1991 two separate rent deeds in respect of a flat and open space on theground floor of 17. Darya Ganj, New Delhi were executed in favour of eachone of the petitioners by Shri S. Prasad and Shri P. N. Prem, representingthemselves as President and Secretary respectively of BUNI. These rentagreements are alleged to have been forged and fabricated by the petitionersin connivance with Shri S. Prasad and other office bearers of OBUNI. Aperusal of the copies of the deeds reveal that each of the petitioners was tohold his portion of the demised property for a period of five years from the1st day of January. 1991 @ rental of Rs. 500. 00. Both the rent agreementscontain identical terms and recite that "buni" is an affiliated body ofbcta, a body incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with itsregistered office at Calcutta. The deeds also state that BCTA is the owner ofthe said property. ( 4 ) IT is also alleged that rent receipts in respect of the rent receivedfrom the petitioners were executed by Shri S. Prasad in the name of BUNIeven though he had nothing to do with the said organisation. The deeds also state that BCTA is the owner ofthe said property. ( 4 ) IT is also alleged that rent receipts in respect of the rent receivedfrom the petitioners were executed by Shri S. Prasad in the name of BUNIeven though he had nothing to do with the said organisation. The furthercase is that on 20/03/1993 the petitioners posing as tenants, with theconvinance of Shri S. Prasad and others trespassed on the property inquestion. According to the petitioners earlier possession of the said propertywas with Shri Sathaibalan, treasurer of Discipleship Centre and ones. Bahadur. The petitioners rely on the affidavits of Shri Sathaibalan andshri S. Prasad to show that possession of the premises in question was givento Shri S. Prasad and then Shri Prasad in turn handed over the possession tothe petitioners. ( 5 ) AFTER the petitioners allegedly trespassed on the property inquestion a report was lodged by Dr. David Walter with P. S. Daryaganj,pursuant to which FIR was registered by the police on 24/03/1993 undersections 420, 468, 471/480 and 481 IPC. At this stage it may be advantageousto extract a portion of the FIR lodged by Dr. David Walter on 20/03/1993 against Ravi Kumar, petitioner. "the aforesaid illegal action of the part of the above person i. e. Sh. Ravi Kumar Nigam and Satyabalan is patently illegal and withoutany authority and amounts to mischief and substantial loss to thecomplainant. It is further learnt that the said Sbri Ravi Kumarnigam belongs to land grabing mafia who is very active in Delhi ingrabing the Government and other religious and Charitable properties. The said person is nefariously daring to grab the other partof the aforesaid property of the BUNI at 16, Daryaganj, Delhiand has been personally claiming and openly threatening. The aboveperson has threatened and has created a lot of commotion and fearin the mind of the Christian Community which has been largelyaffected by the aforesaid person and BUNl being law abidingsociety and having no other way to approach any other authority,we humble place the above said facts for your perusal which maykindly be taken on the record and prompt and proper legal actionmay kindly be taken against the above said culprits". ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that nocase whatsoever is made out against the petitioners as their entry into thebuilding is lawful, being the tenants of the premises in question under validrent agreements. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that nocase whatsoever is made out against the petitioners as their entry into thebuilding is lawful, being the tenants of the premises in question under validrent agreements. ( 7 ) WITH regard to the question as to why the rent agreementsexecuted in favour of the petitioners were signed by Shri S. Prasad and Shrip. N. Prem as President and Secretary of BUNl, it is submitted that actuallythe business of OBUNI was being carried out in the name of BUNl as theorganisation headed by Shri S. Prasad was the actual BUNl. The same is theexplanation for the rent receipts which were executed by Shri Prasad inregard to the premises which has been allegedly taken on rent by thepetitioners. It is further contended that there is a dispute with regard to thequestion whether Shri S. Prasad or Dr. Walter David is the President ofbunl. Learned Counsel urges that the dispute between the parties is purelyof a civil nature. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submits that thepetitioners have trespassed on the property in question with the object tograb the same. He points out that the property which was originally fetchingabout Rs. 2000. 00 as rent is now being allegedly given on rent of Rs. 1000. 00per month to the petitioners. Learned Counsel also points out that theproperty is situated in a prime location in Daryaganj and is of immensevalue. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the State that theproperty could not have been let out to the petitioners on 1/01/1991 asshri Sathaibalan, Treasurer of Discipleship Centre was in possession of thesaid property and was paying rent till 16/03/1993 to the said centre,which in turn was a tenant of BUNI headed by Dr. David Walter. As asequitor he points out that the entire transaction between the petitioners, Shrisathiabalan and Shri S. Prasad and others is a fabricated one, meant todeprive BUNI headed by Dr. David Walter and Discipleship Centre of theproperty in question. He contends that Shri S. Prasad is not the President ofbuni and on his own showing he is the President of OBUNI, an organisation which is different from BUNI. David Walter and Discipleship Centre of theproperty in question. He contends that Shri S. Prasad is not the President ofbuni and on his own showing he is the President of OBUNI, an organisation which is different from BUNI. ( 9 ) AT this stage it will not be appropriate to make a detailed andmeticulous examination of the evidence and elaborate exploration of themerits of the case as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties. However, two or three facts/questions, which arise from the material placedon record, especially the affidavits of Shri Sathaibalan and Shri S. Prasadfiled in support of the case of the petitioners and the alleged agreementsdated 1/01/1991, need to be mentioned : 1. It is surprising that the lease deed in favour of the petitionerswas executed on 1/01/1991, when OBUNI headed by Shriprasad was registered only on January i, 1991. 2. From the affidavit of Shri Sathaibalan dated 20/07/1993 placedon record by the petitioners, it appears, that he was in possession of the part of the property till 20/03/1993. Receiptsproduced by Discipleship Centre show that he was paying rentfor the property to the Centre till February, 1993. The paymentfor the monthof February, 1993 was made on 16/03/1993to the Discipleship Centre, from whom he had allegedly takenthe premises on rent as a sub-tenant. If that was so, how anytenancy could be created in favour of the petitioners in January1991 when Sathaiabalan was still holding the possession of theproperty and paying rent to the Discipleship Centre. In bisaffidavit he also states that some portion of the premises washanded over by him to Shri S. Prasad and Paul N. Prem on 31/12/1990. If that was correct why was he paying theentire rent, without any corresponding deduction on that acount, to the Discipleship Centre. Again how could the saidrent agreement of 1/01/1991 create tenancy with effectfrom that date, when admittedly Sathaibalan was still inpossession of a major portion of the premises. Shri S. Prasad,in his affidavit dated 20/07/1993, asserts that part possessionwas delivered to the petitioners on 1/01/1991 but theagreements do not say so. ( 10 ) THE alleged rent agreements dated 1/01/1991 categoricallydeclare that the landlord leases to the tenants property in question and tohold the same as tenants for a term of five years from 1/01/1991. Theagreements clearly postulate that the petitioners will hold the property w. e. f. 1/01/1991. ( 10 ) THE alleged rent agreements dated 1/01/1991 categoricallydeclare that the landlord leases to the tenants property in question and tohold the same as tenants for a term of five years from 1/01/1991. Theagreements clearly postulate that the petitioners will hold the property w. e. f. 1/01/1991. In other words according to the agreements possession wasdelivered to the petitioners on 1/01/1991. The agreements nowheresuggest that only part possession and not full possession was given to thepetitioners on that date. The position taken by Shri Sathaibalan and Shris. Prasad in the affidavits appear to be not to be inconformity with theagreements dated 1/01/1991. It is significant to note that according tothe documents filed by the Discipleship Centre payments of rent from time totime were being made by Sathaibalau to Discipleship Centre through Banks. Last payment made on 16/03/1993 was through a cheque. In theaffidavit of Shri S. Prasad dated 20/07/1993 filed in response to the intervention application of Discipleship Centre, it is stated that Discipleshipcentre has no concern with the property in dispute, and BUNI did notinduct Discipleship Centre as tenant of the property. The affidavit furtherstates that since the property in question belongs to the BUNI (Original)headed by Shri S. Prasad, the previous tenants, Shri Sathaibalan and Shris. Bahadur rightly handed over possession to its real owners. If this was theposition, then why Sathaibalan and S. Babadur were paying rent to thediscipleship Centre. (3) Next question relates to the information given by BCTA, owner ofthe property in question to the query of the Investigation Officer, BCTA bymeans of its certificate dated 8/04/1993 has certified that it recognisesbuni as the only lawful successor of the Baptist Union of North Indiaformed in 1947 and is a constitutent body of BCI a. The certificate furtherrecites that BCTA does not recognise any other baptist Union of North India. If this is so how could Shri S. Prasad, President of OBUNI create a tenancyin favour of the petitioners. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that entry of thepetitioners into the premises was innocent and was on the basis of the agreements dated 1/01/1991. If this is so how could Shri S. Prasad, President of OBUNI create a tenancyin favour of the petitioners. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that entry of thepetitioners into the premises was innocent and was on the basis of the agreements dated 1/01/1991. Keeping in view the above discussion, at thisstage, it will be sufficient to point out that in a given case taking of thepossession of a property to begin with may be innocent but after coming toknow that the entry was not proper, if the party still continues in possessionand does not withdraw from the property it will indicate an intention whichmay be actionable under Section 448 read with Section 445 of the IPC. ( 12 ) I am not impressed by the submission of the learned Counsel forthe petitioners that the matter between the parties is essentially of a civilnature. The allegations of fabrication and forging of documents to grab thechurch property are of a serious nature. Investigation is still going on andmust be allowed to proceed unhampered in accordance with law. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that Section448 Indian Penal Code will not be attracted in the instant case as no insult, injury or annoyance has been caused to any person in possession of the property. Accordingto him, neither Discipleship Centre nor BUNI headed by Dr. David Walterwere in possession of the property at the time when petitioners acquiredpossession of the same. I am not inclined to accept the plea of the learnedcounsel for the petitioners are being premature as at this stage investigationsare still in progress. In this regard, however, the submission of the learnedcounsel for the respondent needs to be noticed. He submits that as Shrisathiabalan ceased to be the tenant, the possession automatically revertedback to Discipleship Centre as the former was a sub-tenant of the latter andannoyance and injury has been caused to it as also to BUNI for the allegedtrespass over the property by the petitioners. ( 14 ) PRIMA facie there appears to be no equity in favour of thepetitioners, for exercise of discretion under Section 438 Cr. P. C. ( 15 ) IN view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the applicationsand the same are dismissed. ( 16 ) ANY observation made hereinabove will not be considered as anexpression of opinion on the merits of the case.