Shri Amit Sharma & Manoj Dubey vs State (Govt. Nct Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 2750 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Bail Application No. 956/2009

                                           Date of Decision : 21.07.2009

Shri Amit Sharma & Manoj Dubey           ...... Petitioners
                          Through : Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Adv.

                                     Versus

State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)                        ...... Respondent
                                     Through : Mr. Pawan Bahl, Adv.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?                             YES
2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                   NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest ?                                          NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section

420/406/120B IPC, FIR No. 01/2009 registered by Economic Offence

Wing, Crime Branch, District South-West, New Delhi.

2. The allegations against both the accused persons are that they

in collusion with each other have siphoned off a sum of Rs.49 lakhs

from the account of M/s Adhar Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. registered office

at 203, Sethi Bhawan, Rajendera Place, New Delhi. The modalities of

siphoning of the aforesaid funds was that firstly they induced the

complainant Mr. Rajeev Gupta and his other family members to pool

their money in the account of the aforesaid company and thereafter

the said money was transferred to the personal account of Amit

Sharma and then disbursed. It is also alleged that for doing so the

accused persons had obtained a fresh cheque book from the Bank of

Maharastra where the account was maintained.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

the learned APP. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant

also has been heard.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

to the effect that the complaint which has been lodged by Rajeev

Gupta on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR is registered is a false

complaint in as much as the aforesaid amount of Rs.49 lakhs was

utilized, after the withdrawal in order to pay outstanding liabilities to

the creditors. The learned counsel has referred to various bank

resolutions authorizing them to raise the loan to discharge the said

liabilities on behalf of the company. It has been stated that after filing

of the FIR the petitioners had fully cooperated with the Investigating

Officer and had also given an FDR for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs apart from

furnishing his own property as a security to fully protect the interest of

the complainant, and therefore, their protection against the arrest

deserves to be made absolute. It is also contended by the learned

counsel that the entire exercise of the complainant was to take over

the rein of the company and oust petitioners from the management for

which the accused persons reserve their rights to take such

appropriate legal action as may be permissible in law.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has disputed the few

pages of the resolutions relied upon by the petitioners by urging that it

has been purportedly signed by only three Directors while as the

actual document is signed by five Directors. The learned counsel for

the complainant has also disputed the claim of the petitioners that the

aforesaid withdrawal of the amount was for the purpose of payment of

of debt borrowed by the company.

6. So far as the learned APP for the State is concerned, it was

urged that the petitioners have not been cooperating in the

investigation and as and when they are summoned for the purpose of

investigation instead of addressing the communication to the IO, they

have been writing letters to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and

thereby taking false and frivolous pleas to avoid their appearances

before the Investigation Officer and thereby impeding the fair

investigation in the matter.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

respective sides. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations

against the petitioners and especially the method followed by them in

siphoning a huge sum of money from the bank in question, it is not a

fit case where the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory

bail. The factum of the petitioners having deposited a sum of Rs.10

lakhs or having furnished the immovable property as a security also in

my view does not reduce the gravity of the allegations against them so

as to persuade this Court to exercise such a discretion in favour of the

petitioners. This is more so on account of the fact that there are

documents, which have been referred by the learned APP which show

that the petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation of the

matter.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the anticipatory bail

application of both the petitioners, however, any view expressed

hereinbefore may not be taken as an expression on the merits of the

case. The amount of money deposited by the petitioners with the

Registrar General shall continue to be with this Court subject to such

order as the learned Trial Court may pass.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JULY 21, 2009 KP