IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Mithun Bhatnagar - Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1547 of 2021 & Crl.M.(Bail) 813 of 2021 and Bail Appln. 1715 of 2021 & Crl.M.(Bail) 814 of 2021
Decided On : 21-10-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of fraud and cheating. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner’s fight for bail. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. state’s arguments against bail. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. criteria for granting bail. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conditions for bail granted to the petitioner. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in FIR No.45/2020 dated 19.07.2020, registered at Police Station Connaught Place for offences under Sections 420 /468/471/120B IPC and FIR No.46/2020 dated 20.07.2020, registered at Police Station Connaught Place for offences under Sections 420 /468/471/120B IPC.
2. The allegation in the FIR No.45/2020 is that the complainant is a registered government licensed electrical contractor. It is stated that in the year 1996, the complainant had applied for an industrial plot with DSIDC (Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation) now known as DSIIDC (Delhi State Infrastructure Industries Development Corporation) under relocation scheme under the name of M/s D. K. Traders. It is stated that application No. 54114 was allotted to the complainant, however the said application/plot was cancelled in the year around 2001. It is stated that on 10.01.2019 one Mr. Vikram Saxena along with one Mr. Ajay Saxena came to the previous office of the complainant and enquired about M/s D.K. Traders, the business entity of the complainant. It is stated that since the complainant had shifted his office, Vikram Saxena met the complainant at his new office. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena introduced himself as an employee of DSIDC by showing his I-Card and showed the complainant some papers having the complainant's application number with DSIDC for industrial plot for which he had applied in 1996, but had later been cancelled. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena convinced the complainant by saying that the Government had allotted 10,000 new plots to those persons who were earlier denied industrial plots at the current market rate. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena introduced Mr. Ajay Saxena as his senior colleague in Relocation Division with DSIDC and stated that he would complete all the necessary formalities in obtaining the industrial plot. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena further told the complainant to come to the DSIDC office at Connaught Place for further clarification and gave his telephone number to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant, in order to verify the same, went to the DSIDC office where he met Mr. Vikram Saxena who told complainant to wait downstairs near "Jain Chawal Wala" as it was not appropriate to talk in front of everyone. It is stated that after few minutes, Mr. Vikram Saxena then came downstairs along with the petitioner and introduced him as his senior under whom he was working. It is stated that they held a meeting where Mr. Vikram Saxena showed the complainant his old application papers of DSIDC in order to portray to the complainant that he had all the previous details of his cancelled plot. It is stated that the petitioner herein also confirmed that DSIDC was offering plots to the persons whose plots were cancelled earlier and that this was one in a lifetime opportunity. Mr. Vikram Saxena further said that he would provide an allocation letter for allotment of Industrial Plot within 2-3 days. It is stated that the complainant was convinced that Mr. Vikram Saxena was an employee of DSIDC. It is stated on 17.01.2019, Mr. Vikram Saxena called the complainant stating that his allotment letter was ready and asked him to come to office for collecting the same. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena handed over allotment letter purported to be issued by DSIIDC vide No. DSIIDC/RULEC/54114 2016-17 dated 14.01.2019. It is stated that Vikram Saxena further called the complainant and asked him to provide all the documents as demanded in the letter within 15 days, otherwise the plot would be cancelled again. It is s
Bail can be granted under stringent conditions, even for serious economic offenses, once investigations are complete and there's no necessity for further custody.
Point of law : Fact as to whether the petitioner can be convicted for an offence under Section 467 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC will be decided only at the time of trial, after evidence is le....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the completion of investigation, primarily documentary evidence, and the accused's custody for the past year, in line with the principles laid down by ....
The court may grant bail considering the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, risk of witness tampering, and evidence available, balancing personal liberty and public interest.
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 balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society in deciding bail applications, considering the nature and seriousness of economic offences and their impact on ....
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.