Bail Appl. No. 617/2020

Page 1 of 8

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment Reserved On: 04.03.2019

Judgment Pronounced On: 13.03.2020

+

Bail Appl. No. 617/2020

ANKUR GOEL.

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Rakesh

Tikku,

Sr.

Advocate along with Mr.

Pritesh

Sabbarwal,

Mr.

Jyotsna Mehta, Mr. Sandeep

Kumar

and

Mr.

Surya

Prakash, Advocates.

versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Ld.

APP for the state with SI

Manjeet PS: Cyber Cell,

Special cell

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

J U D G M E N T

BRIJESH SETHI, J

1.

Vide this order, I shall dispose of a bail application filed

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Ankur Goel

2020:DHC:1708

Bail Appl. No. 617/2020

Page 2 of 8

for grant of bail in FIR no. 150/2019, under Section 420/120B/34

IPC, PS Special Cell(SB).

2.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory

bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely

implicated. Petitioner is currently holding a Permanent Resident

Permit of Germany. Petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2020. He

has moved two bail applications dated 11.02.2020 and 13.02.2020

respectively before the Ld. CMM, Patiala House Courts but the

same were dismissed. It is submitted that petitioner has no

connection with the entire alleged transaction as neither the

payment for the alleged transaction were made from the card of the

petitioner nor the delivery of the goods were made to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that offence of cheating was committed by

one Naved Malik and petitioner is not even named in the FIR as an

accused. It is further submitted that petitioner has no criminal

antecedents and there are no chances of his absconding. It is,

therefore, prayed that petitioner be released on bail.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of its submissions,

has relied upon the following case law:-

2020:DHC:1708

Bail Appl. No. 617/2020

Page 3 of 8

4.

I have gone through the above case law. It is a settled law

that each bail application is to be decided on the basis of its own

peculiar facts and circumstances. No straitjacket formula can be

laid own for dispose of the bail application. So far as the cases

cited by Ld. Counsel are concerned, these are distinguishable on

the basis of the facts and circumstances stated therein.

5.

Ld. APP for the State has opposed the bail application on the

ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in

nature. Petitioner had made call from mobile no. +491707744302

to the complainant and purchased goods. The CDRs of mobile

phone no. +491707744302 duly prove the fact that orders were

placed from this mobile phone only. He has, therefore prayed for

dismissal of the bail application.

6.

I have considered the rival submissions. The present case

u/S. 419/420/120B/34 IPC was registered on a complaint filed by

Ms Rose Conlan, on behalf of M/s Christian Louboutin India Pvt

Ltd, a company dealing in super luxury leather items and having

2020:DHC:1708

Bail Appl. No. 617/2020

Page 4 of 8

store at DLF Emporio mall, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. It is alleged that

one Naved Mallik, a US resident made a call on 11.03.2019 from a

foreign no. +491707744302 at the landline phone of the outlet and

showed his interest in purchasing shoes from the outlet. The caller

provided his mail ID which was n.malli@kaza410.com. On

12.03.2019, the caller selected few items (shoes/purse) having total

cost of Rs 25,80,500/-. On 19.03.2019, the caller used a different

number i.e. 87368377395 and placed order and also forwarded

authorisation letter in respect of three cards which were to be

swiped, through another mail ID i.e. mnaved361@gmail.com. The

payment was made from these cards on 19/03/20