IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Rajesh Jain - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 477 of 2018
Decided On : 02-05-2018
JUDGMENT
1. By the present application, petitioner Rajesh Jain seeks regular bail in FIR No. 205/2016 registered at PS Crime Branch for offences punishable under Sections 406/409/420/468/471/188/120B IPC. Sections 467/109/201/34 IPC and Section 7/8/11/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also added during the course of investigation.
2. Brief conspectus of facts as per FIR No. 205/2016 are that on 8th November, 2016 pursuant to the demonization of one thousand and five hundred rupees currency notes announced by the Government of India, Raj Kumar Goel conspired with Ashish Kumar, Bank Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, one Chartered Accountant and one mediator who used to bring money to the bank to earn huge profits by converting black money in the form of old demonetized currency into new currency notes. The alleged mediator was offered commission on all such transactions. Raj Kumar Goel, having bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Naya Bazar Branch, deposited old currency notes in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Connaught Place Branch pursuant to the instructions of the chartered accountant and Ashish Kumar. Thereafter, the bank manager issued demand drafts in the name of Sunil Kumar, Seema Bai, Dinesh Kumar and others against the cash deposited. It was further alleged that various bank accounts were opened in the name of various companies on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and approximately Rs.25 crores had been deposited by the accused persons in these companies after demonetization. Thus, the new currency, which was to be delivered to the general public in regulated manner, has been misappropriated by the accused persons for illegal monetary gains.
3. On 24th June, 2017, the main charge sheet was filed against six accused persons namely Rohit Tandon, Raj Kumar Goel, Ashish Kumar, Kamal Jain, Dinesh Bhola and Ramesh Bhola. Thereafter, the first supplementary chargesheet was filed against Yogesh Mittal on 13th October, 2017. Petitioner Rajesh Jain was arrested on 28th November, 2017 and after the completion of investigation qua the petitioner, secondary supplementary charge sheet was filed on 25th January, 2018 under Sections 420/188/109/120B/34 IPC and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner.
4. As per the second supplementary charge sheet, petitioner Rajesh Jain is the proprietor of M/s. Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation and his son Prateek Jain proprietor of Shrinivas Sales Corporation. As per the investigation even the work of Shrinivas Sales Corporation was looked after by Rajesh Jain. A major amount of cash in the form of demonetized currency was deposited in the accounts of Yashoda Sales, P.S. Sales, Padam Trading Company and P.K. Enterprises during demonetization period and an amount to the tune of Rs.3,95,00,000/- was transferred to the account of M/s. Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation between 15th November, 2016 and 5th December, 2016 and Rs.4,13,63,180/- was transferred to Shrinivas Sales Corporation between 15th November, 2016 and 12th December, 2016.
5. It was further alleged that the money so received in the accounts of M/s. Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation and Shrinivas Sales Corporation was further transferred in the accounts of Harsh International Industries Pvt. Ltd. and H. B. Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. Statements of Govind Babu, owner of Harsh International Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Naveen Somani, Director of H.B. Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd were recorded wherein they confirmed their transactions with M/s. Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation and Shrinivas Sales Corporation and that the agreements with aforesaid firms were signed through Yogesh Mittal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prosecution has not arrested the main accused Rohit Tandon in the present ECIR. Further Kamal Jain, CA of Rohit Tandon and Dinesh Bhola, PA of Rohit Tandon both have been charge sheeted without arrest. Even as per the chart handed over by the invest

The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.