SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1282

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Rajeev Suri - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1108 of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sidharth Aggarwal, Advocate, Rohitt Kr.Yadav, Advocate, Ankit Sibbal, Advocate, Udit Arora, Advocate, Rishab Nagar, Advocate, Gaurav Sarkar, Advocate, Ankit Rao, Advocate, Ravi Nayak, Advocate, Anunaya Mehta, Advocate, Vinayak Thakur, Advocate

Active participation in financial fraud and failure to provide necessary material can lead to denial of anticipatory bail.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Financial Fraud - IPC 420 - [IPC 420] - The court discussed the allegations of financial fraud under Section 420 IPC, the involvement of the petitioner in inducing the complainant to invest, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the facts. The court found that the petitioner was an active participant in the transaction and did not provide necessary material, leading to the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case of financial fraud under Section 420 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with an individual based in the USA, defrauded him for a substantial sum of money in international trading transactions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was actively involved in inducing the complainant to invest and in the entire transaction. The court also noted the petitioner's failure to provide necessary material and upheld the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the allegations of financial fraud, the involvement of the petitioner in inducing the complainant to invest, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the active participation of the petitioner in the transaction and the failure to provide necessary material, leading to the denial of anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - By this petition, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.1052/2020 under Section 420 IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR does not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Despite the alleged offence having been committed in 2018 and the complainant having issued a legal notice on 5th March, 2019, the FIR was lodged in December, 2020 after a delay of more than 20 months. Complainant is a resident of UK and he entered into a transaction with one anil, Director of Global Ent. Corporation (in short 'Global Ent.') based in New York, USa and the goods which were funded were allegedly transferred from South africa to Netherlands however, to create a cause of action in India, it is alleged that the complainant met the petitioner in Delhi at the latter's residence at Rajouri Garden where the complainant was induced to invest. No recourse to civil proceedings for recovery of money has been taken and to twist the arm of the petitioner, the FIR in question has been lodged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the when the complainant issued the legal notice, the alleged main accused i.e. anil offered to come to India on 10th March, 2019 to sort out the matters however, the complainant vide his email dated 11th March, 2019 stated that he could not come to India. Now during the course of arguments, the complainant without any basis takes the plea that the petitioner impersonated as anil on the basis of one email which was sent by anil from Thailand at the time when the petitioner was also at Thailand ignoring that all other emails of anil were generated from USa when the petitioner was in India. The petitioner is at best a facilitator between the complainant and anil. Further the best case of the complainant is that the petitioner was a guarantor, even than an offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. In any case the petitioner has joined the investigation nine times prior to the filing of this petition and eight times after filing of the petition. The petitioner's passport is lying seized with the Investigating Officer and he has always made himself available for the investigation. Further the mobile phone and the laptop of the petitioner have also been seized and thus no recoveries are required to be made from the petitioner. Hence anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

4. Learned aPP for the State submits that the FIR was registered on an online complaint dated 29th December, 2020 received relating to online financial fraud. However, prior thereto the petitioner had given a written complaint on 1st December, 2020 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, the DCP, West and the SHO. Despite the fact that the petitioner has given the mobile phone number and the email address of anil however, anil could not be contacted. The whereabouts of anil are not known and the petitioner is the only person who knows the whereabouts of anil in case such a person exists as the complainant has never met this anil. He further states that during the investigation, foreign departure and arrival details of the petitioner were collected from FRRO and his bank statements were also collected from different banks which reveal that the petitioner had money transaction with Global Ent. Though the petitioner claimed that he had forwarded invoices and emails to the complainant which he had received from anil/Global Ent. however, the petitioner refused to show the original emails and invoices received from anil/Global Ent. and thus he did not fully cooperate and did not provide any details of the co-accused anil and the alleged company Global Ent. Further the mobile phone given by the petitioner to the investigating officer is not the one used by the petitioner at the time when the alleged offence was committed. Thus custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the facts.

5. Learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top