SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.P. Vaish, J.
Ashish Pandit - Appellant
Vs.
State (NCT) of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 47/2014
Decided On: 25.02.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Anurag Jain and Mr. Seraj Ahmed, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.

Normally when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438) - Indian Penal Code (Sections 420/406/409, 120B) - Companies Act, 1956 (Sections 147, 150, 163, 193, 209, 211, 227, 303, 307, 628) - Serious Fraud Investigation Office report - The court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail based on the petitioner being declared a proclaimed offender and the serious allegations against him.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and financial irregularities. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and the application was dismissed by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, who had been declared a proclaimed offender, was not entitled to anticipatory bail based on the serious allegations against him.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who had been declared a proclaimed offender, was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and financial irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that normally when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner being declared a proclaimed offender influenced the court's decision to dismiss the application for anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

V.P. Vaish, J.

1. By way of this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner Ashish Pandit seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 175/2012 under Sections 420/406/409 read with Section 120B IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the State.

2. Arguments on the application on behalf of the petitioner and the State have bee heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was registered in the year 2012, the name of the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He also submits that there is no allegation of representation by the petitioner and no amount was given to the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner also alleges that the petitioner landed at Mumbai airport and his passport was seized by Immigration Authority. The petitioner moved an application for transit bail bearing B.A. No. 915/2013 before High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was dismissed vide order 29.8.2013.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant had filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act bearing CC No. 1269/1/2011 in respect of dishonour of cheque worth Rs. 4.40 crores (Rupees four crores and forty lakhs) against the accused Pankaj Madan, Saurav Sikar and M/s. Genntax Tremix Pvt. Ltd. One of the accused namely Saurav Sikdar filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C being Crl.M.C. No. 2769/2011 before this Court and vide order dated 6.8.2012 this Court directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to investigate the affairs of the company and determine who was in management and control of the company. SFIO will also determine whether there is any merit in the petitioner's allegations.

6. The petitioner co-operated with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. SFIO submitted a report that accused Pankaj Madan, his wife Shikha Sinha and Saurav Sikar were running the company but there was gross violation of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and they had taken money from the complainant.

7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, allegations against the petitioner is that he knew Saurav Sikdar from before and Pankaj Madan approached the petitioner through him for project management. The petitioner referred them to Shailesh Hiranandani and thereafter Pankaj Madan used to interact with Shailesh Hiranandani directly. The petitioner referred to a chartered accountant for appraisal of a loan project. Narender Bajaj prepared a visit report in July, 2009 and according to him the petitioner was not involved with the said loan proposal in any manner at all.

8. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the I.O. sent an e-mail on 13.3.2013 raising certain queries and the petitioner replied the same. Thereafter the I.O. did not sent any e-mail or made further inquiry.

9. The application has been opposed by learned APP for the State on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner cheated the complainant for worth Rs. 5.90crores (Rupees five crores and ninety lakhs). Learned APP for the State has pointed out that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 17.1.2014 and the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

10. In the reply to the application for bail filed on behalf of the State, it is mentioned that the complainant Rajvir Singh lodged a complaint that he came into contract with Pankaj Madan and Saurav Sikdar through one Manoj Mishra and both of them represented as M.D. and Vice President of M/s. M/s. Genntax Tremix Pvt. Ltd., a company which was in the business of trade and merchandise of metals across the glove. They informed the complainant of having imported 500 MT Copper Cathode Plates and the same were lying at Nava Seva Port, Mumbai for sale. They induced the complainant to purchase the copper cath

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top