Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt.Of Nct Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1768, 2476 of 2021
Decided On : 11-05-2022
Bail - Offence under sections 409/420/477a/120B IPC - [WHITE COLLAR CRIME] - [IPC 409, IPC 420, IPC 477a, IPC 120B] - The court discussed the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the crime, and the involvement of a huge amount of public money. The court also considered the fact that the investigation is still pending and no ground for bail is made out. The bail applications were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in two cases related to the misappropriation of shares and funds by the company's CEO. The complainants opened Demat accounts with the company, and the shares were transferred to a pool account and siphoned off without their knowledge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, and the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation. The court also noted that other co-accused persons were absconding. The court dismissed the bail applications, considering the gravity of the allegations and the involvement of a huge amount of public money.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail in the white-collar crime case involving misappropriation of shares and funds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the crime, and the involvement of a huge amount of public money. The court also noted the lack of cooperation in the investigation and the absconding of co-accused persons.
Final Decision: The bail applications were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - These are the petitions filed by the petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 295/2017 in Bail application 1768/2021 and FIR No. 296/2017 in Bail application 2476/2021 under sections 409/420/477a/120B IPC registered at P.S. - R.K. Puram.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR's were registered on the complaint of one Raju Dudani in Bail application 1768/2021 and Ravinder Kumar Ngapal in Bail application 2476/2021 that 2 persons Sitaram and abhishek of M/S amrapali aadya Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred to as 'the company') approached the complainants in the month of February 2015 (to Raju Dudani in Bail application 1768/2021) and in September 2016 (to Ravinder Kumar Ngapal in Bail application 2476/2021) for opening a Demat account with the company having their offices at Somdatt Chambers 1, UG-29 Bhikajicama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066 and at 13 Vaishali, Lala Jagatnarain Marg, Pitampura Delhi 110034. They both presented that the company is leading and well-established stock brokers from last 18 years with absolutely clean antecedents and transparent dealings. They also assured the complainants that all of their equities/shares will be kept safely and securely into the Demat account, holding with the company. Thereafter, both the complainants decided to open a Demat account in the company in February 2015 and in September 2016 respectively. On behalf of the said company two persons, namely, Sitaram and abhishek collected Power of attorney and few documents like KYC, Holders Detail Form, Nomination Forms duly filled in by the complainants on the pretext that they are the necessary documents as per the prevailing practice for opening Demat and Trading account with the company and will be properly filed by them as per the standard obligatory requirements and these documentation once completed, will be shared in the form of a photocopied set with both the complainants. It was further represented to the complainants that all the original documents which were signed by the complainants will remain in the safe custody of the company. The Demat and Trading account of complainants were opened with the company bearings numbers DP:CDSL12059200, Demat account 00118760, Trading account number 2532 and CDSL 12059200, Demat account 00180141 and Trading account number Z90 respectively.
3. Thereafter, both the complainants requested the above said persons to give the duly verified and stamped copy of the complete set of documents but the documents received by complainants were incomplete which were neither signed nor authenticated by any official of the company. Moreover the copy of the power of attorney and other relevant documents were not supplied to the complainants despite repeated reminders but instead both the person repeatedly assured the complainants that the dealings were absolutely transparent and honest and the shares are kept in the Demat account in the safe custody of CDSL. Unsuspectingly the complainants started trade transactions with the company in respective trading accounts. after few months the complainants realised that they have no information from CDSL about shareholding in the Demat account and contacted both the said persons about this legal deficiency upon which they again assured the complainants that all the shareholding are being properly maintained. Whenever the complainants contacted the office of the company they were ensured by the regional head and other officials that their shares are being kept in Demat account. Then the complainants made further payments through cheques on the various dates for purchasing all the equities. The complainants have shareholding amounting to Rs.35 Lacs and Rs.1.10 Crores respectively.
4. In august 2017, both the complainants requested the officials of the company to provide the statements of shareholding in CDSL, upon which they mailed the statement but there was no
AI
The gravity of the allegations, the nature of the crime, and the involvement of a huge amount of public money are crucial factors in deciding bail applications in white-collar crime cases.
Offence of cheating – Denial of bail - Gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail to the accused
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the contentions presented by the petitioner's counsel, indicating the importance of effective legal representation in 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....
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
The main legal point established is that an accused charged under a non-bailable offense, but with a compoundable nature and a maximum punishment of 3 years, may be granted bail after considering fac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the conditions of bail and the court's reliance on evidence of money trail in reaching its decision.
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
