Delhi High Court
Sachin Kumar Saraf vs State on 7 October, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLICATION NO.825/2007
Date of Decision : 07.10.2009
SACHIN KUMAR SARAF ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil Soni, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Pawan Bahl, APP for
the State.
Mr.M.Taneja, Advocate
for the complainant.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
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 a petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the
petitioner in respect of FIR No.14/2008 under Section
406/420/120B IPC registered by Economic Offences Wing,
Crime Branch, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the
petitioner is alleged to have been a Director of a company
by the name of M/s Laurel Wood Pvt. Ltd. and he along
with the co accused had cheated the complainant to the
tune of Rs.3.5 crores by inducing them to make payment in
advance on the representation that the said payment would
Bail Appl. No.825/2009 Page 1 of 6
be made to certain party who would supply the Tea to the
complainant party. It has transpired that no such Tea was
supplied to the complainant party and the money was
deposited in certain companies where from the same was
withdrawn by the petitioner and his co-accused to their
own advantage.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
to the effect that there is Memorandum of Settlement
arrived at by the petitioner with the respondent on
23.4.2009 according to which the petitioner has agreed to
pay certain amounts to the respondent/complainant in
terms of the said agreement. According to the said
agreement, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that
he has already paid approximately a sum of Rs.33 lacs to
the respondent/complainant while as for the balance
amount of Rs.8 lacs which was to be paid by the petitioner
to the respondent, he is prepared to pay the post dated
cheques today in Court to the respondent/complainant.
4. It has also been stated that the petitioner was granted
interim protection by this Court on the condition that he
shall join the investigation which he has done and
therefore, the interim order which was passed in favour of
the petitioner on 27.4.2009 may be made absolute by
granting him anticipatory bail.
Bail Appl. No.825/2009 Page 2 of 6
5. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned
APP has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended
that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretion to be
exercised in his favour inasmuch as his anticipatory bail
application was rejected by this Court on 06.8.2009 as he
had failed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lacs in the name of the
Registrar General in order to show his bonafides. It was
stated that even according to the Memorandum of
Understanding which was arrived at between the petitioner
and the complainant, the petitioner has not complied with
the terms and conditions of the said Memorandum of
Understanding though he might have paid some amount of
money to the respondent/complainant. It is stated that in
terms of clause 2 of the said agreement, the petitioner was
required to pay a sum of Rs.8 lacs to the complainant
within 15 days from the date of signing of the agreement. It
is contended that the agreement was signed on 23.4.2009
and the said amount of Rs.8 lacs was not paid within 15
days from 23.4.2009 which clearly shows that even the
Memorandum of Understanding not adhered to by the
petitioner. On these grounds, it is stated that the petitioner
does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
7. The learned APP has opposed the anticipatory bail
application on the ground that the petitioner is not
Bail Appl. No.825/2009 Page 3 of 6
cooperating with the IO and did not join the investigation.
It is stated that as the earlier bail application was rejected
on 06.8.2009 because of non deposit a sum of Rs.25 lacs
with the Registrar General in order to show his bonafides
and the fact that the offence of cheating is committed by
him involving great deal of deliberation and calculation.
Therefore, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The petitioner in my opinion does not deserve to be
enlarged on anticipatory bail despite the fact that he might
have as is alleged by him paid some amount of money to
the complainant in pursuance of the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 23.4.2009. This is on account of the
fact that the earlier anticipatory bail application of the
petitioner was rejected on merits on the ground that the
petitioner had failed to show his bonafides by not
depositing Rs.25 lacs with the Registrar General of this
Court.
10. The petitioner if at all wanted to settle with the
complainant, the money ought to have been paid to the
complainant in compliance with the Courts order by
depositing the same with the Registrar General and
thereafter ought to have filed an application with the
Registrar General of this Court stating that he has no
Bail Appl. No.825/2009 Page 4 of 6
objection in case the same is released to the complainant
party. This was not done by him which clearly shows that
he cannot be permitted to bypass the order of the High
Court by signing the Memorandum of Understanding with
the complainant and urging that he has paid certain
amount to the complainant.
11. Even if the Memorandum of Understanding is taken on its
face value, the same has not been adhered to by the
petitioner. He has failed to pay a sum of Rs.8 lacs to the
complainant in terms of clause 2 of the said Memorandum
of Understanding within the stipulated period as contended
by the complainant. Even today when the amount of Rs.8
lacs is being paid to the complainant, it is stated that the
said amount will be paid by way of post dated cheques and
the Court has reasonable doubt that the post dated
cheques which are being issued by the complainant may
not be even honoured on presentation. In addition to this,
there are serious allegations against the petitioner owing
huge amount of money to the complainant party that he
has not been co-operating with the investigating agency
which in my view disentitles to any discretionary relief by
this Court.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that this is not a fit
case where the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on
anticipatory bail.
Bail Appl. No.825/2009 Page 5 of 6
13. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
14. Expression of any opinion made hereinbefore, may not be
treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
V.K. SHALI, J.
OCTOBER 07, 2009
RN
