The seriousness of the offense and the need for thorough investigation can be grounds for denying anticipatory bail in cases involving fraudulent activities.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 11894/2023 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

BAIL APPLN. 1467/2023

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr. PC seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 66/2023 registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi, under Sections 419/420/468/471/ 120B IPC.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the FIR was lodged on the statement of Karan Kasotia wherein it was alleged that co accused Ashish Choudhary had offered a government job to the complainant through his grand parents and demanded a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs. Ashish Choudhary had represented himself as Sub-Inspector and also came in the police uniform. After some time, Amit Kumar also joined and represented himself as senior of Ashish Choudhary. The complainant was asked to fill up the form and give the qualifications documents and address proof alongwith two photographs. The complainant alleged that his grandfather gave Rs. 1 lac cash to the accused. There was continuous communication between the complainant and the accused Ashish Choudhary regarding the job and Ashish Choudhary continued to take money from the complainant's grandfather. There was also exchange of mails. In May, 2021 allegedly, Ashish Choudhary further took Rs.50,000/- and handed over him an appointment letter issued by Department of Criminal Intelligence (DCI), Man Singh Road, New Delhi, Govt. of India. Vide this appointment letter, the complainant was purportedly appointed for the post of Constable- Batch No. 9042-20/Trg. (Group-C), Non- Gazetted Non-Ministerial in the Department, Uttam Nagar, Criminal Intelligence (DCI) Cadre of Ministry of Home Affairs in the pay scale of Band-1 (Rs. 5200-20200).

3. The complainant was also given a call letter. On the basis of call letter the complainant reported and thereafter the complainant also met with Amit Kumar and Dharmender who issued the Shoes, Shocks and Mask etc. and the original documents were also returned to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the purported training started from 11.05.2022 and Amit Kumar used to teach them. It was also alleged that many other boys also joined the training. It was also alleged that a lady used to come there who was introduced as Ms.Ankita and she was represented as Additional S. P. Madam. It was stated that further Rs. 1 lac was given to Ashish Choudhary. It was alleged that Ashish Choudhary, Amit Kumar and Ankita had cheated his grandfather in the name of government job and took Rs.5.5 lacs and the complainant was made to undergo a fake training and was issued fake documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact there is no role of the petitioner and the allegations are only against the Ashish Choudhary. It has been stated that now the Police wants to conduct custodial interrogation only because there is a transaction of Rs.11 lacs between Ankita and Ashish Choudhary. It has further been stated that Ankita had a bad married life and she also remained in the litigation for around 8 years and also had a daughter from the previous marriage. Thereafter she married Ashish Choudhary and it was merely a transaction between husband and wife and the petitioner was ready to join the investigation.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the application and has filed the detailed status report. The status report indicates the investigation conducted so far.

6. Learned APP submits that the petitioner has been found directly involved in the present case with co accused persons and used to give training to victims after posing herself as ASP/SP in the abovementioned fake department running in the name of fake Ministry of Home Affairs. It has further been stated that fake documents in the name of Ministry of Home Affairs were recovered from abovementioned fake department at their instance of co accused Ashish Choudhary and Amit Kumar from the alleged premises and house of accused persons.

7. Learned