Facts
Applicants had filed for a Bail Application seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail which was declined by the High Court on the grounds that there was a recovery of an alleged amount of ₹80 Lakhs of gold jewellery and ₹30 Lakhs in cash both amounting to Rs.1.10 Crores, to be recovered from them.
Applicant’s contentions:
The applicant contended that there was nothing on the record to substantiate the averments that were made in the FIR, which has been so created to falsely implicate the applicants. Furthermore, the offences allegedly committed by the them are punishable with sentences below 7 years and thus, in terms of the verdict of the Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
Respondent’s contentions:
The respondent contended that the applicant was found absconding and intentionally avoiding the investigation of the case and was not found residing at his permanent address. They further contended that the applicant won the trust of the respondent in order to come close and took the advantage by taking the cash loans. Few of them were repaid and the rest were left unpaid, also she tried to approach the complainant/respondent with a business offer that she could sell the old jewellery at effective price and collected jewellery worth Rs.80 lakh from 9-10 ladies and then refused to pay or return i.e. the applicant did not just cheat her but also cheated others too. The respondent, also contended that as per the promissory note she was supposed to pay Rs.5 Lakh which too was refused by the applicant.
Judgement
The bench concluded that this verdict relates to the aspects inter alia of compliances of Sections 41 and 41A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 observing to the effect that any non-compliance thereof would entitle the accused to grant of bail. Bench further observed that the said provisions come into play at the time of arrest of a person and the requirement of calling upon a person to appear before the police officer on his having credible information or where there is a reasonable suspicion of that person having committed a cognizable offence.
HC bench stated that, the said provisions of law have to be undoubtedly adhered to by the Investigating Agency in the event the police officer considers it essential to arrest the accused persons and the custodial interrogation of the applicants was required for the recovery of cash and gold jewellery both together amounting to approximately Rs.1.10 Crores as observed and that, there is no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants at this stage, in as much as, as per the prosecution version, there are statements of witnesses recorded i.e. of women who had given their articles of jewellery to applicant which are categorical in relation to the gold jewellery worth Rs.80 Lakhs and Rs.30 Lakhs in cash. And, hence the second anticipatory Bail Applications filed by the applicants were thus, declined.
Case Title: Neelam Chauhan v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Bench: Justice Anu Malhotra
Decided on: 2nd August 2022
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
