The court emphasized that in cases involving serious allegations and absconding defendants, anticipatory bail should be denied to ensure custodial interrogation and prevent potential evidence tampering.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The applicants, vide their respective second bail applications seek the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No.582/2021, PS Shalimar Bagh under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with their previous bail applications seeking the grant of anticipatory bail bearing Bail Appln. No.1908/2022 and Bail Appln. No.1910/2022 of the applicants named Sunil Kumar and Neelam Chauhan respectively seeking the grant of anticipatory bail having been declined by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022 on the grounds that there was a recovery of an alleged amount of Rs.80 Lakhs of gold jewellery and Rs.30 Lakhs in cash to be still recovered from them.

2. The status report that the State has submitted dated 23.07.2022 in BAIL APPLN. 2166/2022 filed by the applicant-Sunil Kumar states to the effect that the custodial interrogation of the said applicant is required for the recovery of cash and jewellery, both amounting to Rs.1.10 Crores. Inter alia, the State has submitted that the applicant/accused is absconding and intentionally avoiding the investigation of the case and was not found residing at his permanent address House No.327, Banjara Basti, Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as mentioned in the bail application, the proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the applicant vide order dated 14.07.2022 and that the applicant had joined the investigation of the case only on directions of this Court.

3. As per the status report dated 23.07.2022 submitted under the signatures of the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh by the State in BAIL APPLN. 2139/2022 filed by the applicant-Neelam Chauhan (who is the wife of Sunil Kumar, the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2166/2022), identical contentions and submissions as raised in the status report qua her spouse Sunil Kumar, have been detailed.

4. The averments in the FIR No.582/2021, PS Shalimar Bagh under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lodged on the complaint of Shashi Bala alleges to the effect that the late husband of Shashi Bala, the complainant used to run a small jewellery shop under the name and style of 'Amba Jewellers', with its address at 323/2, Shalimar Village, Near CC Block Market, Delhi-110088, and that he expired in the year 2012 and thereafter, the shop and her two children have been the responsibilities of Shashi Bala, the complainant. Inter alia, the complainant submitted that her late husband also used to manage several committee groups and after taking over the shop, she too slowly and gradually had started some committee groups and over a period of time, several persons got associated with the said committee groups. Inter alia, she stated through the FIR that the existing members of these committee groups often used to introduce their relatives and friends to be included as fresh members, and in this manner, one Meena Rathore W/o Sh. Sanjay Rathore, introduced Neelam Chauhan i.e. the applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2139/2022 to be included in certain committee groups in the year 2014-15 and over a period of time, the said Neelam Chauhan became a member in several committees and in each committee, she used to book 2-3 slots in the names of her relatives but the complainant had never met any of those relatives and that the complainant used to book all those 2-3 slots in the name of Neelam Chauhan only and the monthly payments against those slots were made by Neelam Chauhan.

5. It has been stated in the FIR that everything was smooth and that over the years, Neelam Chauhan (applicant of BAIL APPLN. 2139/2022) had won the complainant's trust and even used to bring her fresh customers. Inter alia