Delhi High Court
Joji Sebastin & Ors. vs State on 10 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: December 6, 2010
Date of Order: December 10, 2010
+ Bail. Appln. No.1044/2010
% 10.12.2010
Joji Sebastin & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Suhail Dutt and Mr. Azhar Alam for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail. The allegations against the
petitioners, employee of ITI Financial Service Limited are that they had duped the
complainant and cheated the complainant.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that the
complainant entered into an agreement with ITI Investors Services Limited for
investment in trading business of commodities. The trading in commodities is like trading
in shares and the margin money is always kept in the accounts and instructions are
given to the company to invest the amount in commodities. With rise and fall in the price
of commodities, profit or loss to the account holder is there. The complainant submitted
that he had been receiving SMS messages from applicants that he was earning profits
and when he ultimately checked his account, he found that his account stood depleted.
Bail Appln. 1044/2010 Page 1 Of 2
He submits that he was not sent statement of account and the trading was done without
his consent. The complainant in this case is Mr. Vipul Goel. He and his family members
including his wife, mother etc had opened trading accounts and similar complaint is in
respect of his family members.
3. A perusal of documents would show that from these trading accounts money was
withdrawn by the complainant and his family members from time to time by cheques.
The plea taken by the complainant that he was not furnished statement of account, in my
view, is not tenable since withdrawals could not have been done without knowing the
balance in the account. The other plea urged by the complainant that the trading was
done without his consent again seems to be doubtful since he was receiving SMS
messages about the trading from his account. It was his obligation to check the account
from time to time. He had opened an email ID with the investment company and as per
contract entered into by complainant with the investment company, he was supposed to
up-date himself about his trading through email and if there was any discrepancy he was
supposed to inform the company within 24 hours.
4. Considering these aspects, in my opinion, it is not a case where investigation
needs arresting of the petitioners/accused persons for custodial interrogation.
5. Resultantly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest,
the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting
officer/SHO concerned, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall join
investigation as and when called by the investigating officer and shall furnish all
electronic and non-electronic records, as and when asked by the IO.
December 10, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Bail Appln. 1044/2010 Page 2 Of 2
