IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Diwakar Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3094 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2021
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 496/2018 under Section 381 IPC registered at P.S. Shalimar Bagh.
2. Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the basis of statement of one Devi Dayal Mittal S/o Sh. Ram Sharan Dass Mittal R/o BL-106, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. According to the complainant, he runs an office of company at the above noted address and another office of his company is situated in Chawri Bazar. He runs his company under the name and style of Ram Sharan Dass & Company which deals in trading of papers. According to the complainant, the employee of company namely Rajiv Lochan Mishra R/o E-81, Bhagwati Garden Extn. Dwarka More, Delhi, permanent resident of Village-Malachka, Munger, Bihar, was looking after the cash transaction and transport work of his company for the last 15 years.
3. According to the complainant, on 11.09.2018 at about 01:30 PM, he went to passport office from his office. Thereafter his brother Sat Prakash Mittal gave a sum of Rs.11 Lakhs to Rajiv Loachan Mishra to be given to a party at Peeragarhi, Delhi. All the currency notes were in the denomination of 2000. Thereafter his brother Sat Prakash went to Model Town for lunch. After some time the brother of the complainant received a phone call from the party that their employee Rajiv Lochan Mishra has not reached them. The brother of the complainant tried to call on both the phone numbers of Rajiv Loachan Mishra, but the same were found switched off. Thereafter Sat Prakash (Brother of complainant) reached at BL-106, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi at about 04:00 PM and checked the balance cash, which was kept in the bad box, but the cash kept in bad box was not found. There were total 38 Lakhs rupees in Bad Box in which Twenty Nine Lakh rupees were in the denomination of 2000 currency notes and rest Nine Lakh rupees were in the denomination of 500 and 100 currency notes. The employee of the company of complainant namely Rajiv Lochan Mishra had taken Rs.49 Lakhs along with Company's owned Red colour Motorcycle bearing No. DL 8S AW 8316 Hero Splender. He has also stolen some documents and IDs along with cash. Accordingly, a case vide case FIR No. 496/18 U/S 381 IPC was registered at PS. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, and investigation went underway.
4. Raids were conducted by the police in Delhi, Bihar and Jharkhand, however, the main accused could not be arrested. During investigation, one of the co accused namely, Varun Pathak, who happened to be the relative of the main accused, was arrested on 16.09.2018 and an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- is stated to have been recovered from the co-accused. Nevertheless, the main accused could not be arrested. In the meanwhile, the investigating agency got the main accused declared as proclaimed offender. An award of Rs.50,000/- was announced on the main accused. On 26.08.2020, the main accused was arrested and he disclosed that he gave Rs.36,00,000/- to his brother i.e. the present petitioner/applicant and sister-in-law Sulochana both residents of Deoghar, Jharkhand.
5. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner/applicant, Ld. APP for the state, Ld. counsel for the complainant who assisted the Ld. APP for the state, perused the Status Report filed by the state and also perused the records of this case.
6. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that no CDR records have been obtained by the investigating agency showing that co-accused Rajiv Lochan Mishra and Varun Pathak came in contact with each other. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency has wrongly alleged that the petitioner has purchased property worth Rs.12 to 13 lakh and undervalued the same for Rs.6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/- Lakh and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid by way of cheque. It is further submitted by him that there is no investigation or evidence a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious offenses and the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the ....
The recovery of a substantial amount of cheated money, along with alleged forged documents, and the petitioner's clean past antecedents were key factors in granting bail.
Anticipatory bail is not granted where substantial evidence suggests active participation in fraud and multiple offenses, warranting custodial interrogation.
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.
Granting anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations, the accused's cooperation in the investigation, and the interim protection granted to other co-accused family members.
The court held that a prima facie case must be established for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation.
Criminal Proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. Superior Courts while exercising this power should also strive to se....
The court denied anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of cheating allegations, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to investigate potential conspiratorial conduct.
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.