Vansh Bahadur Singh vs State
1998 Latest Caselaw 454 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. In this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the anticipatory bail application to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner company is involved in cheating to the tune of rupees two to four crores of rupees. Hundreds of small investors who had deposited their life time savings were defrauded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly mentioned that the petitioner is the Managing Director and his wife are sons are the director of the company. The company is more like a family owned concern. 500 to 600 cheques have already been dishonoured because no amount is lying in the bank accounts of the company. On these considerations, the anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

2. On 4th May, 1998, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner had stated before this Court, on instructions, that the petitioner had no intention of cheating any of the investors and even now he is willing to pay the entire amount due and payable to them. Mr. Nayar submitted that the petitioner in order to demonstrate his bona fides and genuine desire to pay the outstanding amount to the small investors is prepared to deposit Rs. One Crore with the Registrar of this Court provided he is given interim protection from arrest and two weeks' time to pay the amount. Mr. Nayar further submitted that even the remaining outstanding amount shall also be paid to all investors, within a reasonable time. The court was given a clear impression that the entire outstanding amount of all the investors shall be paid very shortly. It is assumed that the poor investors primary interest was to get their outstanding amount and not to send the petitioner to the jail.

3. Mr. Nayar also assured the Court that the petitioner shall join the investigation and would fully co-operate with the respondent.

4. The Court in order to secure the interest of the poor investors granted limited indulgence and protection to the petitioner for a period of two weeks so that during this period the petitioner may bring in substantial amount so that these small investors could at least get part of their deposits. As a matter of fact, in the order dated 4th May, 1998, it was clearly incorporated that:

"It is however made clear that in case the said amount as under- taken by the counsel for the petitioner is not deposited, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any indulgence from this Court."

5. The matter was to be listed on 19th May, 1998. During the interregnum period, Mr. C.D. Singh, Advocate moved Cr. M. 2836/98 with the following prayers:

"a) modify the order dated 4.5.1998;

b) direct the police to release the key of his office;

c) direct the police to allow him to stay at his residence and released all valuable goods;

d) direct the police to release his both cars bearing no. DLT CF 5519 and DLL CJ 1796; and

e) pass such other and further orders that may be deemed and proper in the interest of justice."

It may be pertinent to note that there was no prayer for extension of time to deposit the amount.

6. The court direct notice on that application for 19th May, 1998. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned counsel appeared before the court on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that though the petitioner had undertaken to deposit the said amount and submitted that the petitioner had no intention of cheating the small investors and had agreed to deposit Rs. 1 crore within two weeks. Mr. Nayar submitted that the petitioner does not want to deposit the amount which he had undertaken to deposit. Even at this stage, no extention of time was sought for depositing the amount. Instead a categoric statement was made that the petitioner does not want to honour his undertaking. In other words, the petitioner wants to resile from the under-taking given to the court. One could appreciate the petitioner's not being able to arrange the amount within the stipulated period and requesting for more time to deposit the amount. In the instant case, the petitioner wants to take a complete somersault and dishonour the undertaking given to the court. It is abundantly clear that the petitioner had given undertaking to the Court only to obtain the interim orders (protection from arrest) from the Court.

7. Though no fault can be found with the counsel for the petitioner because he made the statement on instructions but the Court certainly cannot have any sympathy for the petitioner who had not only defrauded the hundreds of small investors who had deposited their entire life saving with the petitioner but in order to obtain interim orders from this Court, the petitioner had deliberately misled this Court.

8. One consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, as an extraordinary case, in which the petitioner had deliberately tried to mislead and overreach the Court. This Court is left with no option but to reject his application for anticipatory bail with an exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/-. I direct that the costs be deposited within a week with the Registrar of this Court. The Registry is directed to inform the Court whether the costs as imposed has been deposited.

9. This petition is accordingly dismissed.