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

2023 Supreme(Del) 3990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Daya Shanhar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1964 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mr.Rajan Kumar Singh, Mr.Rajeev and Mr.Ashok Anand, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the state with Mr.Dipanshu Meena, Advocate and Insp.Anand Pratap, PS EOW, for the Respondent.

The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, and other relevant circumstances, without delving into the merits of the case.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Misrepresentation - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, and the absence of any steps for arrest or custodial interrogation by the investigating officer. The court also considered the compromise deed and the admission of interim bail to a co-accused.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case where he was accused of misrepresentation and inducing investment in a project. However, it emerged that the petitioner was also an actual sufferer and not part of the conspiracy.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the completion of the investigation and the petitioner's cooperation, without delving into the merits of the case.

Issues: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The completion of the investigation, the petitioner's cooperation, the absence of steps for arrest or custodial interrogation, the compromise deed, and the admission of interim bail to a co-accused influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.

Final Decision: The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--This is an application filed under Section 438 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.76/2021 registered under Section 420/406/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at PS EOW, Mandir Marg.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that FIR was registered on the complaint of Ravindra Pratap Singh, Authorized representative of M/s Waves Bio fuels India Pvt Ltd. & Director of M/s Trimurti Exim Pvt. Ltd. wherein he alleged that the present applicant along with two other co-accused persons namely Piyush Bandopadhyay and Shweta Shrout who have misrepresented themselves and made him believed that they are head of `Make in India' Project and induced him to invest 32cr. to get the work done and therefore FIR No. 76/2021 was registered. However, it emerged out that the present applicant was also an actual sufferer, and not the part of the conspiracy and in lieu of the aforesaid facts, present FIR No. 76/2021 was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the first date i.e. 01.07.2022, the petitioner was granted interim protection and the same is continued till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, the petitioner has not misused the interim protection and has been regularly attending the investigation.

4. Learned APP, on instruction of the IO, states that the petitioner has been joining the investigation and the investigation is almost complete and charge sheet is likely to be filed within a month. It is also a matter of record that at no point of time IO has taken any step for arrest of the petitioner or his custodial interrogation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of the court to the compromise deed dated 06.11.2020 entered between the petitioner and complainant whereby it has been stated by the complainant that in fact the petitioner never misrepresented himself to be close associate of a senior officer working in PMO. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the co-accused Piyush Gopal Bandhopadhyay has been admitted to interim bail by this court.

6. Since, now the investigation is complete and the petitioner has joined the investigation, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner be admitted to anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the IO/learned trial court, subject to the following conditions:

    a) the petitioner shall cooperate and join the investigation as and when directed;

    b) the petitioner shall not leave NCR without prior permission of the concerned Court.

    c) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;

    d) the petitioner shall provide his/her mobile number(s) to the Investigating Officer;

    e) f) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the Investigating Officer/Court concerned by way of an affidavit.

7. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top