* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1661/2010
Decided on 09.03.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
DEEPAK SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.A. Worso Simik with
Mr. Kahorngam Simik, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State
with Investigating Officer.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of bail in case FIR No.137/2009 lodged against him by one Mr. Sultan Singh under Sections 420/120B IPC registered with PS R.K. Puram (Crime Branch), New Delhi.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and in fact he has nothing to do with the aforesaid complaint and that he does not have any knowledge as to how the sum of `30,000/- came to be deposited through a cheque in his account, maintained by him with State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He further states that the petitioner is a businessman based at Guwahati, who has been travelling all over the country and was completely unaware of the aforesaid deposit. It is stated that the aforesaid deposit was discovered by BA No.1661/2010 Page 1 of 4 the petitioner, only after he was confronted by the police on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant. He further states that the prosecution has been delaying the proceedings before the learned ACMM, due to which the petitioner is suffering as he has remained in custody ever since 14.9.2009.
3. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present petition. He submits that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. Sultan Singh, the aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 420/120B IPC with PS R.K. Puram (Crime Branch), New Delhi. In the course of the investigation, the accused person, namely, Mr. Colin, was arrested in August, 2009. After his arrest, the petitioner herein, described as Deepak Singh @ Roshan Lal, was also arrested on 19.9.2009 and then it was revealed that the co-accused Mr. Colin had given 7 bank account numbers to the complainant to deposit money therein. It is stated that out of the aforesaid 7 bank account numbers, one bank account belongs to the petitioner, in which a sum of `30,000/- was deposited. It is further stated that the real name of the petitioner is Roshan S/o Shri Chander Mohan Singh, but he got a PAN Card bearing No.CDIPS9403G prepared in the name of Deepak S/o Shri Rajen Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid forged PAN Card and by giving wrong information, the petitioner opened the aforesaid bank account with the State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, Delhi.
4. It is submitted that in the course of investigation, when the Investigating Officer contacted the erstwhile employer of the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Ashok Kumar, 89, Village & Post Office Ghitorni, Delhi, under whom the petitioner had worked as an Office Boy in the year 2009, it was found that in the resume submitted by the petitioner to his employer, the name of the BA No.1661/2010 Page 2 of 4 petitioner is mentioned as Roshan Singh S/o Shri Rajen Singh R/o B-5, 2nd Floor, 938, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, and that a photograph of the petitioner was also pasted in the said resume. It is submitted that the petitioner had been collecting emoluments from his employer under signatures in the same name. It is found that for obtaining the aforesaid PAN Card, the petitioner had submitted with his application form, a photocopy of a school leaving certificate, stated to have been issued by the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. On inquiry, it was found that no such school existed in the said area. Lastly, it is submitted that when the Investigating Officer approached the National Security Depository Ltd., with the particulars of the PAN Card of the petitioner, he was informed that the aforesaid PAN Card was issued on an application submitted by the petitioner in the name of Deepak Singh, on the strength of the aforesaid school leaving certificate, which has now turned out to be forged. It is therefore submitted by the learned APP that the co- accused Colin @ Jude and Peter along with the petitioner and a few others are members of an organized gang that has been deceiving people and fraudulently inducing them to deposit money in their accounts.
5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 21.1.2011, counsel for the petitioner had made a submission that inordinate delay had been caused by the prosecution in the progress of the case and that the petitioner has remained in custody since 14.9.2009, and that despite the fact that the charge sheet was filed on 19.11.2009, arguments on charge have yet not been addressed even after passing of one year. On that day, the Learned APP for the State was directed to file an additional status report indicating BA No.1661/2010 Page 3 of 4 therein the reason for the delay in the progress of the case. The current status of the case was also directed to be intimated to the Court today.
6. Learned APP for the State hands over an additional status report today, wherein it is stated that on the last date of hearing fixed before the learned ACMM, Saket Courts, i.e., 5.3.2011, arguments were heard on behalf of the accused Mr. Colin, and an adjournment was sought on behalf of the accused Deepak Singh, who was produced in custody before the court below, on the ground that his counsel was not available. He states that the next date of hearing, for arguments on charge on behalf of the petitioner, is 17.3.2011. Copy of the order sheet of 5.3.2011 is handed over by the learned APP for the State, wherein the learned ACMM has recorded that the adjournment is sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of unavailability of his counsel.
7. The aforesaid status report falsifies the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the delay in the progress of the case has been caused by the prosecution.
8. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. However, neither party shall seek any adjournment on the date fixed before the learned ACMM, i.e., 17.3.2011. After arguments are addressed on charge, the learned ACMM shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
HIMA KOHLI,J
MARCH 09, 2011
sk
BA No.1661/2010 Page 4 of 4