CRL. M.C. 2346/2020

Page 1 of 7

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:19.09.2023

Pronounced on: 26.09.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 2346/2020

ROHIT KUMAR JHA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. B.M. Shukla, Mr. Rohit

Kumar Jha, Advocates

versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

AND OTHERS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for

State with SI B.K. Bharti, PS

Najafgarh

Mr. Neeraj Dahiya, Advocate

alongwith

respondents

in

person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The instant petition under Section 482 read with Section 439

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been

filed on behalf of petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail

granted to respondent nos. 3 and 4 by the court of learned Additional

Special Judge, Special Court (Electricity), South-West, Dwarka

Court, New Delhi vide order dated 26.10.2020 in bail application

bearing nos. 715/2020 and 739/2020 in case bearing FIR no.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:26.09.2023

19:07:02

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. 2346/2020

Page 2 of 7

485/2019, registered at Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi for offence

punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟).

2.

Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP accepts notice on

behalf of the State.

3.

Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the FIR are that

respondent no. 3 had initially induced petitioner to become a member

of QNET company but petitioner had refused to invest any money.

Thereafter, on 15.07.2018, respondent no. 3 had introduced petitioner

herein to respondent no. 2 who had induced the petitioner to invest

money forgetting membership of QNET company. The respondent

nos. 2 and 3 had then obtained his identification cards i.e., PAN card,

Aadhaar card and had obtained signatures of petitioner on blank

papers. On 15.07.2018, an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was transferred

into the account of one Saurabh Saluja and one Sunny Arora with Rs.

3,00,000/- each. Upon demanding the money, respondents had

threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Subsequently, on

the complaint of petitioner, present FIR dated 25.09.2019 was

registered. The learned Trial Court had granted anticipatory bail to

respondents nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 26.10.2020.

4.

Learned counsel for petitioner states that the respondents had

threatened petitioner before they were granted bail and even after

they were granted anticipatory bail by learned Trial Court vide order

dated 26.10.2020. It is also stated that respondents have intentionally

flouted the bail conditions. It is stated that since the respondents have

not complied with the anticipatory bail conditions and have

threatened the petitioner herein, anticipatory bail granted to

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:26.09.2023

19:07:02

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. 2346/2020

Page 3 of 7

respondents be cancelled.

5.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the other

hand, submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have joined

investigation as per the directions of the IO. It is stated that

chargesheet has not been filed even after four years. It is stated that

petitioner had willingly taken membership of QNET company and

had willingly submitted his identification cards to respondent nos. 2

and 3. It is also stated that the membership was free of cost and did

not require any sort of consideration. It is further stated that the

petitioner had purchased three holiday packages in total and no

amount with regard to the first holiday package was transferred or

received by respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that petitioner

had willingly transferred the disputed amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the

account of his seniors at QNET company namely, Saurabh Saluja and

Sunny Arora. It is further stated that petitioner had knowledge