Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Vishal Gupta @ Vishal Mahajan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3886 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Regular Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - IPC 420/406/34/120B - [Section 439 Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, induced the complainant to provide a large sum of money for a loan that was never disbursed. The petitioner denied any involvement and claimed that the money received was for business transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments of both the petitioner and the prosecution. It noted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody and that the charge sheet had been filed. The court also highlighted the documentary nature of the evidence and the absence of allegations of tampering with evidence. The court ultimately granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's alleged involvement in the cheating and conspiracy, the nature of the transactions, and the potential risk of the petitioner fleeing from justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the potentiality of an accused fleeing from justice should not unduly influence the decision on bail. It also considered the petitioner's custody, the filing of the charge sheet, and the documentary evidence in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, taking into account the petitioner's custody, the nature of the evidence, and the absence of allegations of tampering with evidence.
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 212/2022 under Sections 420/406/34/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi. As per the case of the prosecution, that complainant namely Mr. Raj Kamal Sharma, filed a complaint alleging he is engaged in business of dry fruits and having store in the name of Rajshree Trading Company situated at 437, 1st Floor, Gali Mandir Wali, Naya Bansh Khari Baoli, Delhi. It is further alleged that due to COVID 19 he was facing financial crunch and thereafter, consulting his business friend, got the phone number of a loan financer, namely Geetesh Jain based in Ahmadabad, Gujarat for the purpose of taking loan.
2. It is further alleged that on 14-15.10.2020 Geetesh Jain came to the office of the complainant at Khari Baoli and prepared a loan file, in which the complainant provided him ITR statement of 3 years, Bank Statement, Adhar Card, Pan Card. Thereafter, the said person Geetesh Jain expressed his possibility of providing loan to the tune of Rs.10 Crores. It is further alleged that in March 2021, again Geetesh Jain called the complainant and stated that loan will be sanctioned from a private financier and he therefore introduced the complainant with another person, namely, Bankim Chandra Pandit Ji, proprietor of 7 Star Consultancy and Services, office at A-7/42, Goyal Intercity, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, who discussed the loan terms with the complainant and also demanded the loan processing fees in advance.
3. It is further alleged that after discussing the terms for loan and agreeing on advance payment for Rs.40,00,000/-, the complainant deposited Rs.33,50,000/- through RTGS in Geetesh Jain's bank account bearing No. 182801000674 (ICICI Bank) from 08.07.2021 to 30.09.2021 and Rs.6,50,000/- in October.
4. Further alleged that both the above mentioned person called the complainant to Ahmadabad, and then Bankim Chandra introduced him to his partner, namely Vishal Mahajan i.e. petitioner herein. Further alleged that Bankim Chandra and Geetesh Jain asked the complainant to provide Rs.20 crores as loan and further demanded Rs.35 lacs from the complainant.
5. Further, on 14.10.2021, the complainant further deposited Rs.35,01,000/- through RTGS in 7 Star Service Consultancy Account No. 921020016191619 Axis Bank and was assured by Bankim Chandra and Geetesh Jain to provide him loan, and demanded the money for loan fees and advance interest and deposited Rs.3,40,000/- in his personal account. It is further alleged that whenever the complainant demanded his money, Geetesh Jain and Bankim Chandra threatened him and his family with dire consequences and till date the complainant had not received the loan money. The complainant being cheated by the aforesaid persons got the present FIR registered.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, APP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. I have also perused the record of the case and status report filed by the State.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.07.2022. It is further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and at no point of time any inducement was given by him to the complainant. It is further submitted that the money as alleged by the prosecution which was received by the petitioner from the co-accused persons was only towards business transaction, and even before the transfer of the money by the complainant in the bank account of other co-accused persons, he had been receiving money from co-accused Bankim Chandra on account of old business relations. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner at no point of time has executed any agreement with the complainant and has no role to play in the present case. It is further submitted that the chargesheet has been file
The potentiality of an accused fleeing from justice should not unduly influence the decision on bail, and specific conditions for bail should be tailored to the circumstances of the case.
The court's decision emphasized the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case when granting bail, taking into account the nature of the offense, character of the evidence, and other re....
The change in circumstances, including the framing of charges and commencement of evidence recording, can influence the decision to grant bail.
Granting bail based on lack of specific allegations in the charge sheet and parity with the bail granted to main and other co-accused in similar cases.
The court considered the period of incarceration and the nature of the charged offenses in granting bail to the petitioner.
The severity of the allegations, the modus operandi of the accused, and the principles laid down in previous judgments are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
