Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Tanisha Rani Sharma - Applicant
Versus
State (The NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2702 of 2015
Decided On : 03-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Ravi Sikri, Mr. Deepak Yadav
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajat Katyal, Mr. Gurmehar Singh Sistani, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Vasdev
The court emphasized the need to carefully evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case when considering the grant of anticipatory bail, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Conspiracy - 419/410/120B IPC - 437 Cr PC
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application apprehending arrest in a case involving criminal conspiracy and cheating. The complainant alleged that the accused induced her to part with a huge amount of money, in cash and kind, by making knowingly false promises. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming that the complaint was false and concocted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant. Her custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to establish the chain of events and recover the cheated amount and articles. The court noted that the applicant had not cooperated with the investigating agency during her interrogation while enjoying interim protection.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the complainant's allegations, the necessity of the applicant's custodial interrogation, and the applicant's lack of cooperation with the investigating agency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It considered the gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the impact of granting bail on the investigation and public interest.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the application, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity of the applicant's custodial interrogation.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The applicant has preferred the present bail application u/s 438 Cr PC apprehending arrest in case FIR No.229/2015 registered at PS Parliament Street u/s 419/410/120B IPC. A similar bail application moved by the applicant before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has been dismissed on 05.12.2015.
2. The aforesaid case arises on the complaint of the complainant Ms. Indu Shukla. The case of the complainant is that in the month of October 2012, one Anil Kumar Bhadoria known to the family of the complainant (who is also one of the accused), came to her along with one K.K. Sharma – also co-accused. The said persons induced and allured the complainant that the wife of K.K. Sharma, namely, Tanisha Rani Sharma – the applicant/ accused is the daughter of a Minister of Uttarakhand and belongs to a royal family having good links with various ministers. The complainant was allured that if she arranges Rs.1 crore, she would be made a Director in the Food Corporation of India (FCI). She was allured that when she becomes a Director, she would get a salary of about Rs.1 lakh, apart from a vehicle with red beacon and an accommodation to live in Delhi. The complainant stated that she fell into the trap laid by the accused, and made payments - and even supplied household goods, to the accused from time to time, details whereof have been set out in her complaint/FIR.
3. The allegation of the complainant is that the monies paid/ spent by her, which are claimed to be in the tune of Rs.91 lacs - over the period from November 2012 to October 2013, have primarily been pocketed by the applicant Tanisha Rani Sharma. According to the complainant, monies were, inter alia, paid and meetings were held between her and the accused- including the applicant, at the official residence of a Central Minister at 9, Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi.
4. The case of the complainant is that she was throughout being misled and defrauded by making knowingly false promises by the accused persons, who induced her to part with a huge amount of money, in cash and kind.
5. The submission of learned senior counsel for the applicant is that the allegations made by the complainant are false. K.K. Sharma is engaged in coaching IAS aspirants. The complainant was coached by K.K. Sharma. The complainant, thus, knew K.K. Sharma and his wife Tanisha Rani Sharma, the applicant. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged highly belatedly in October 2015, whereas, the monies were allegedly paid between November 2012 and October 2013. The delay in lodging of the complaint itself, prima facie, shows that the same is concocted and not true. It is further argued that though the complainant claimed to have arranged monies through her brother, namely, Ashok Kumar. The said brother is totally unemployed. The complainant herself is not married, and her father is only a Class IV employee with Municipal Corporation of Delhi, who is an accused in a bribery case – the trial of which is going on in a CBI Court in Delhi.
6. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant claims to have borrowed Rs.11,93,000/- from one company and Rs.21,93,000/- from another company for paying the sum to the accused persons. However, it is not clear whether these companies were even filing their income tax returns, disclosing such large amounts of income.
7. Learned senior counsel for the applicant further submits that the allegations contained in the FIR, as registered, are at variance with the complaint dated 22.05.2015 made by the complainant. It is submitted that the FIR as lodged is an improved and a different version from the initial complaint dated 22.05.2015. Thus, the registration of the FIR appears to be in connivance with the I.O. Allegations of payment of bribery by the complainant to the I.O. is also made in the application.
8. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been called for investigati
