IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Ajay Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. No.3177 Of 2022 & CRL.M.(BAIL) No.1306 Of 2022 (Interim Bail)
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX, Rule 2A – Special power of High Court – Offences Relating to documents and to property marks – Using a genuine forged document – Present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks grant of regular bail in case present FIR has been registered at instance of M/s Capital Land Builders through its authorized representative Shri Manoj Bansal – Held, Investigation qua applicant is complete filed and any further investigation if required to be conducted cannot be a sufficient ground for continued detention of applicant in judicial custody – No useful purpose will be served by keeping applicant in custody any further alleged previous conduct of applicant is concerned Honble Supreme Court, Central Bureau of Investigation observing that denial of bail as a sign of disapproval for former conduct would be improper – Application is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Amit Sharma J.]
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 584/2022 dated 07.08.2022, under Sections 420/467/468/471/448/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), registered at PS Jyoti Nagar.
2. By three separate judgments of the same date, this Court has disposed of three other bail applications filed on behalf of the applicant, being BAIL APPLN. 3174/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 408/2022, BAIL APPLN. 3175/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 585/2022 and BAIL APPLN. 3176/2022 seeking grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 557/2022. The said FIRs have been registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/448/120B of the IPC, at PS Jyoti Nagar. The said FIRs are based on a similar set of allegations with respect to the present applicant, except for the fact that they relate to distinct plots of land. It is pertinent to note that that except for FIR No. 408/2022, all the FIRs have been registered at the instance of M/S Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. FIR No. 408/2022 has been registered at the instance of M/S Runwell (India) Pvt. Ltd., a sister concern of M/S Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd.
3. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “complainant company”), through its authorized representative, Shri Manoj Bansal. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the registration of the present FIR are as under:
(ii) It is the case of the complainant company that on 10.03.2006, acting through its President, Sh. Ajay Chowdhary, the Society convened an extra-ordinary general meeting of the complainant company and fraudulently removed Sh. Om Prakash Sachdeva, Sh. Ankur Sachdeva and Smt. Promila Kishore as Directors and appointed Sh. Ajay Yadav (applicant herein), Sh. Arjun Chowdhary, Sh. Surender Pal and Sh. Abdul Haq Farhan as Directors.
(iii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the complainant company filed a civil suit before this court, bearing number C.S.(OS) 1906/2006, titled M/s Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Shaheed Memorial Trust and Ors. During the course of proceedings in the said civil suit, on an application filed by the plaintiffs therein under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), this Court, vide order dated 06.10.2006, granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction and restrained the defendants therein, which also included the present applicant, from representing themselves as shareholders/representatives of the plaintiff therein, i.e., the complainant company. The said injunction was vacated by an order of this Court dated 06.08.2009. Thereafter, in an appeal filed against the order dated 06.08.2009, in FAO(OS) 337/2009, a Division Bench of this court, vide order dated 06.11.2009, set aside the order dated 06.08.2009, thereby restraining the applicant and others from holding themselves out as shareholders and Directors of the complainant
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
The grant of bail should consider the gravity of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the absence of allegations regarding tampering with evidence. Imprisonment before conviction should n....
Point of Law : Legal position set out in the decision referred to hereinabove, the instances of forgery committed by the applicant, not only in the transactions entered with the complainant but also ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the gravity of the offence is an aspect to be kept in view by the Court. The c....
Point of Law : Legal position set out in the decision referred to hereinabove, the instances of forgery committed by the applicant, not only in the transactions entered with the complainant but also ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of economic offences and the documentary nature of evidence should be considered while deciding bail applications, and deprivation....
The gravity of an offence is a factor to be considered when granting bail, but it is not the only criterion. Other factors to be considered include the stage of the investigation, the nature of the e....
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.