Anticipatory bail is not granted when the accused is evading arrest, and such evasion undermines the investigation due to serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud.

ORDER

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR bearing no. 136/2022 dated 22.01.2022, registered under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Ashok Vihar, Delhi.

2. The Brief facts leading to the present case are as follows:

a. The present case was registered on the complaint of Sh. Om Jalani, the owner of the firm Metallic Ferro Alloys LLP, alleging that the accountant in the firm, accused no. 1/Pawan Chauhan, in collusion and connivance with other staff member of his company conspired and opened a forged account namely `BRL Logistics'

b. During the course of investigation, it unfolded that accused no. 1 Dilip Kumar Jha and the present applicant opened a forged account bearing no. 2224201011419 in Canara Bank, Badhpat, UP under name of BRL Logistics after taking signatures of all the co-accused persons and thereafter, had fraudulently kept on transferring the funds of the firm into the fraudulently formed forged account. A total sum of Rs.2,20,48,256/- from August 2019 to September 2021, was deposited in current bank account of BRL Logistics by accused no. 1/Pawan Kumar Chauhan. During the course of investigation, it was found that there were per se no business transactions with BRL Logistics.

c. On 03.03.2022, accused no. 1 was arrested, whereafter he disclosed that 25% of the cheated amount was being shared with the co-accused Dilip Kumar Jha and the present applicant. Each received a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- as their respective share, and the remaining amount was further distributed with other accused persons.

d. The anticipatory bail applications of accused/Dilip Jha and present applicant was first rejected on 26.03.2022 by the learned ASJ/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, making the following observations:

"Considering the facts and circumstances and also keeping in view that investigation is at initial stage, co-accused persons are yet to be arrested. Furthermore, the cheated amount is yet to be recovered hence I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused persons, accordingly the present applications of bail are dismissed."

e. The present applicant and the other accused/Dilip Kumar Jha, remained untraceable and Non-bailable warrants were obtained from the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court issued NBWs against them.

f. Further, on 05.07.2022, the learned ASJ (POCSO Act) North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi again dismissed anticipatory bail of the accused persons, with the following observations:

"As per the report of IO, the applicants have not joined the investigation till date and they are absconding. The NBWs have already been issued against the present applicants by the concerned court. The cheated amount is yet to be recovered from the applicants and their specimen signatures have to be obtained in view of these circumstances. I find force in the submissions of the prosecution that admitting the accused persons on anticipatory bail would prejudice the investigation. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that needs to be granted only in those cases where the circumstances warrants the granting of the remedy for avoiding injustice. In the present matter, keeping in view the gravity of the offence and taking note of nature of serious allegations against the applicants and its impact on society, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons, hence, the present applications are dismissed."

g. On 26.08.2022, the accused/Dilip Jha was arrested from his native place. However, the present applicant is still evading arrest and has not yet joined the investigation.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that there are no allegations leveled against the accused in the FIR registered, and he is being falsely implicated in the present case.

4. The learned APP for the