A petitioner in judicial custody may be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. if no custodial interrogation is necessary, despite allegations of tampering with evidence.

ORDER

(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 02/2019, under Sections 406 /409/420/120B IPC registered at P.S. E.O.W.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Sh. Upendra Singh, Authorized Signatory of M/s P. Business Park Owners Association AR & Ors. It was stated by the complainant in his complaint that M/s Piyush Colonizers Ltd. having its registered office at A-16/B1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, accepted the bookings without mandatory permissions and later on neither returned the money nor delivered the booked units and thus committed cheating and fraud since the year 2006.

3. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that M/s Piyush Colonizers Ltd. launched their project "Piyush Business Park", located at Main Mathura Road, NII-2, Sec-31, Faridabad, Haryana in the year 2006 and gave false advertisements in the newspapers claiming that project had all the Government approvals while no layout plan was approved from the Government. Later, the company had closed its offices and has neither given the units to the victims nor refunded their money.

4. During the course of investigation of the case, the culpability of the Directors of M/s Piyush Colonizer Ltd. came on record. These directors are stated to have actively induced the complainant/victims to part with their money. They accepted bookings from the investors before taking approval from the concerned authorities.

5. It was also found during the investigation that petitioner/accused Amit Goel took active part in the day to day affairs of the company and signed the balance sheets and other documents in the capacity of the Director. Petitioner/accused was the Director of the company at the time of commission of crime. During the course of investigation, complainants have been examined and they specifically named the petitioner /accused in their complaint.

6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State, perused the Status Report filed by the State and also perused the records of this case.

7. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in J.C. since 18.06.2018 in other case. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in most of the FIRs registered against the petitioner, the investigation is complete and the petitioner has been granted bail either before or after the filing of the charge sheet. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that no cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of Delhi. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that no second FIR and no fresh investigation is permissible on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence. He further submitted that the prosecution is having the knowledge regarding the pendency of FIRs in Faridabad despite that the prosecution wants to arrest the petitioner in the instant case, rather than transferring the present FIR to Faridabad where the present FIR can be clubbed along with other 49 complaints.

8. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as the petitioner has joined the investigation in numerous other similar cases where the charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that there is nothing which