The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious accusations and the adverse impact of granting anticipatory bail in cases affecting a large number of people.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid two anticipatory bail applications. The petitioners in these two bail applications are two of the co-accused in case FIR No.610/2015 dated 19.07.2015 registered under Section 420/406/120-B IPC at PS Subhash Place, Dist. North-West, Delhi.

2. The case against the accused persons in the said FIR, registered on the complaint of Uma Shahi, wife of Amarjeet Singh is that she had entered into a memorandum of agreement for purchasing a plot bearing no.F-472 admeasuring 150 sq. yd. situated in a proposed project, namely, County Garden in Neemrana, Rajasthan and had paid Rs.3,41,250/- through cash and cheque to the developers M/s Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. as demanded by them. The complainant asked for the documents of the proposed projects, namely, sanction plan, approval etc. from the developers, but the same were not provided to the complainant. The complainant disclosed that no infrastructure had been developed by the builder as per the MOU at the site, and the builder continuously gave false assurances regarding the progress of the project. When the complainant asked for return of her money, the directors of the builder company returned only Rs.85,000/- and did not return the balance. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered.

3. The submission of the petitioners is that the company M/s Om Krishna Developers Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in November 2006 by the husband of the petitioner Urmila Gupta, who is also the father of the petitioner Diksha Gupta, with a paid up capital of 5 lacs shares. The petitioners state that 15,000 shares were allotted to the petitioner Urmila Gupta and 10,000 shares were allotted to the petitioner Diksha Gupta, whereas the remaining 475,000 shares were kept by the director/ promoter – the husband of the petitioner Urmila Gupta and the father of the petitioner Diksha Gupta. While Urmila Gupta states that she has never been involved in the day to day functioning of the said company, and she was not responsible for the conduct of its business, the petitioner Diksha Gupta states that she was only 21 years old at the time of incorporation of the company and she too was not never involved in the day to day functioning of the company, and was not responsible for the conduct of its business. The shareholding of the two petitioners was 2.99% (Urmila Gupta) and 1.99% (Diksha Gupta) in the said company run by Prem Shankar Gupta, the husband/ father of the two petitioners.

4. The petitioner Diksha Gupta further states that she was not an authorized signatory in the said company and she was not authorized to operate the bank accounts of the said company. The petitioner Urmila Gupta states that she neither executed any documents-sought to be recovered by the investigating agency in the instant case, nor she is in possession of any such documents. Urmila Gupta further states that she is a lady aged about 58 years and is suffering from various old age related illnesses. On the other hand, Diksha Gupta states that she is not keeping well and suffering from chronic migraine attacks, of late, and she had to be admitted to ICU at Sant Paramanand Hospital on 09.11.2015 and she had been discharged only on 25.11.2015 on account of her brain related illness. She has sought to produce the medical documents in this regard.

5. The main accused Prem Shankar Gupta has already surrendered before the investigating agency and is in judicial custody. It is stated that all the relevant recoveries have been made from him and the applicants are not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners further states that in the complaint/FIR, there are no specific allegations made against them. No overt act has been attributed to either of them to say that the applicants have dishonestly/fraudulently induced or misrepresented the complainant at any stage.

6. Reliance is placed by both the petitioners on the j