Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Nancy Gill - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2557/2018
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Bail - Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - [IPC 420] - The court granted bail to the petitioner, who was accused of cheating a jeweler of jewelry worth over two crores, subject to several conditions to ensure her presence and cooperation in the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a customer of the complainant, induced the complainant into accepting a large jewelry order by falsely representing a business opportunity involving the King of Brunei. Subsequently, the petitioner and her family allegedly defrauded the complainant and absconded with the jewelry, leading to the filing of an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner played a crucial role in the alleged offense, engaged in intricate planning, and was uncooperative during the investigation. However, considering her prolonged custody, the court granted her bail with stringent conditions to ensure her presence and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged role in the fraud, her cooperation in the investigation, and the risk of her absconding or influencing witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the severity of the accusation, the petitioner's behavior, and the likelihood of her absconding or influencing witnesses, as well as the right to speedy trial and the need to prevent indefinite custody. The court balanced these factors in granting bail with strict conditions.
Final Decision: The court granted the petitioner bail, subject to conditions including a personal bond, surrender of passport, daily reporting to the police, and restrictions on leaving the NCT of Delhi and tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court warned that any violation would result in the cancellation of bail.
ORDER
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 576/2015 dated 22.07.2015 registered at Police Station Karol Bagh under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").
2. The facts, in brief, leading up to this petition are as follows:
a) It is stated that the Complainant is a jeweler by profession and has a jewelry showroom in Karol Bagh by the name of M/s. Mahalaxmi Jewellers which he runs with his two brothers. The Petitioner herein and her family are the customers of the complainant, and they have a relationship with the Complainant which goes back thirty years, with the Petitioner and her family regularly purchasing jewellery from the Complainant.
b) It is stated that in March 2015, the Petitioner informed the Complainant about a big project which she wanted to discuss in private. It is stated that the Petitioner dishonestly represented that the Prime Minister of India had started a programme wherein the King of Brunei wanted to start 14 Super Specialty Hospitals in different parts of India, with the first opening in Ahmedabad, Gujrat. The Petitioner had stated that she had met Dr. Ajja Binti Kifli, cousin sister of the King of Brunei in U.S.A., who wanted to visit political leaders in India and gift them jewellery. It is stated that the Complainant was induced into accepting the order worth more than one crore rupees without taking any advance and agreed to give 5% commission to the Petitioner and her family.
c) It is stated that all communication between the Complainant and Dr. Kifli took place through the Petitioner and the Petitioner thereafter informed the Complainant that the total order comprised of: 1) 10 gold bangles + 2 diamond bangles worth 75 lacs rupees, 2) 2 broad gents bracelets worth 12 lacs rupees, 3) 1 gents bracelet worth 4 lacs rupees, 4) 51 coins of the Prime Minister worth 54 lacs rupees, 5) 31 coins of the Home Minister worth 33 lacs rupees, and 6) a long necklace for the king worth 22 lacs rupees. When the Complainant sought for 50% advance money yet again, the Petitioner and her family reassured the Complainant that the money would be given to him at the time of delivery.
d) It is stated that the Complainant accordingly purchased the gold and diamonds required for the jewellery, and handed over the same on 01.06.2015 to the Petitioner and her family at 6:20 A.M. at their home. The Petitioner informed the Complainant that he would get the money by 3rd June, 2015. Thereafter, on 2nd June, 2015, the Petitioner informed the Complainant that she was flying to Amritsar for the blessings of Guru Nanak Devji. When the Complainant later tried to contact the Petitioner on her phone, it was switched off. The Complainant then visited the house of the Petitioner where the family of the Petitioner allegedly fraudulently told him that the Petitioner had ran away with the jewellery.
e) It is stated that Petitioner's family also threatened the Complainant and his family. At this juncture, the Complainant realized that the story involving the King of Brunei had been concocted by the Petitioner and her family to cheat the Complainant of jewellery worth more than Rs. 2 crores. On the basis of this, the instant FIR was registered.
f) Chargesheet was filed on 03.07.2018. The Petitioner has previously moved this Court for regular bail, however, the application was withdrawn as chargesheet had been filed. Bail application before the Ld. M.M. was rejected. The Petitioner has now approached this Court for regular bail.
3. Mr. R.K. Wadhwa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has been in judicial custody since 07.05.2018. He has argued that the Complainant, with active connivance of the local police, has instituted this case against the Petitioner and that other accused persons, i.e. the Petitioner's husband, two daughters and son, have been given a clean chit
The main legal point established is the court's discretion in granting bail, considering the severity of the accusation, the petitioner's behavior, and the need to prevent indefinite custody, while e....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year, in line with the principles laid down by ....
The seriousness of the offences, the accused's active involvement, and the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence if released are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The court balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, including the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and a prima facie vie....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
