The court established that a person declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 and CRL.M.C. 2053/2019 have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging Orders dated 16.03.2018 and 15.11.2017 passed by the Ld. C.M.M., (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed in State v. Ram Chander Soni arising out of FIR No. 173/2015 dated 17.12.2015 registered at Police Station EOW for offences under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC").

2. BAIL APPLN. 806/2019 and BAIL APPLN. 975/2019 have been filed by Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 and Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 2053/2019, respectively, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 173/2015 dated 17.12.2015 registered at Police Station EOW for offences under Section 409/420/120B IPC.

3. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of both the petitions are as follows:

a) It is stated that on 31.07.2006, M/s. R.C. Info Systems gave the development rights of a project named Kessel I Valley on a land admeasuring 100857 square meters to M/s. AMR Infrastructures Ltd. vide an MoU. On 04.10.2006, father (Krishan Kumar) of the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 became one of the Directors of M/s. AMR and a 12.5% shareholder of the Company. It is stated that owing to his ill health, the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 was made one of the Directors of M/s. AMR on 11.12.2010 and he resigned from the directorship of M/s. AMR on 23.03.2015.

b) It is stated that the project remained incomplete and soon complaints started pouring in. One of the basis of one complaint dated 08.05.2015, FIR No. 173/2015 dated 17.12.2015 was registered at P.S. EOW which named M/s. R.C. Info, M/s. AMR, Ram Chander Soni, Krishan Kumar, Manoj Gupta, Ashish Gupta, Arun Kumar Soni, Prashant Soni, Naveen Soni, and Brij Mohan Gupta. The FIR states that M/s. AMR and its Directors deliberately hatched a plan to lure investors in order to make them invest money that they eventually used to satisfy personal financial objectives. It states that the project did not witness any progress and till mid-2009, Rs. 93,12,000/- was already paid by the investors. It states that when the Complainant cross-checked with M/s. AMR about the total amount paid, it was found that there was a discrepancy of Rs. 4,37,000/-. On approaching the new directors, it was said that the assured return could not be given to the investors, and on asking for a refund of money, it was said that the refund could only be done after 10% deduction from the total paid amount. Subsequently, assured returns were only given from mid-2012 and stopped in August-September 2014. Further, no possession or assured lease was provided to the investors till 2015.

c) It is stated that notice was issued to the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 on 08.11.2016 wherein he was called to join the investigation, which he did, and that on 08.11.2016, he was directed to furnish certain documents to the I.O., which were done on 08.12.2016.

d) It is stated that Ram Chander Soni and Krishan Kumar were arrested on 03.08.2017, and Ankit Gupta, another Director of M/s. AMR was arrested on 24.10.2017. Chargesheet in FIR No. 173/2015 was filed on 27.10.2017 against Ram Chander Soni and Krishan Kumar. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against Ankit Gupta on 17.01.2018.

e) It is stated that during these events, on 15.11.2017, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the Petitioners. On 15.12.2017, as the NBWs remained unexecuted, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the Petitioners and on 16.03.2018, the Petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Aggrieved by these Orders, the Petitioners have approached this Court, impugning the same.

4. Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 2053/2019, and Mr. Janender Kr. Chumbak for Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019.

5. Mr. Chumbak submits that the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 1153/2019 was made an accused only by way of the second supplementary chargesheet and the fact