Anil Kumar @ Sunny vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5298 Del

             * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of Reserve: 16th November, 2010
                                              Date of Order: 22nd November, 2010
+Bail Appln No. 1538/2010
%
                                                                     22.11.2010

ANIL KUMAR @ SUNNY                                ... Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Aman Sareen, Advocate

              Versus

STATE                                                      ... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP for the State


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?

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant who is in JC in a case of cheating along with his father

has sought bail. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the

applicant has been falsely implicated being son of Lal Chand, the main

accused.

2. The record reveals that the applicant was not implicated merely

because he was son of Lal Chand. Lal Chand along with his two sons

Surender Singh and Anil Kumar was running the business of human

trafficking. He had assured complainant of sending his son Nishant Singh to

America for a sum of ` 18.00 lakh. It was assured that Nishant Singh shall be

sent to U.S. with some Member of Parliament. In first meeting Lal Chand and

his two sons took Passport and ` 1.00 lakh from the complainant and after

about 20 days the complainant was informed that visa has been stamped and

flight would take place within a week and asked him to come to Delhi with

balance amount of ` 17.00 lakh. The complainant arranged ` 17.00 lakh by

withdrawing money from his bank and other sources (the proof of which has

been given by the complainant to the police) and this money was handed over

to Lal Chand in Hotel Price Palace, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj. Lal Chand was

there with his two sons. After taking money Lal chand handed over this

money to his son Anil Kumar i.e. the present applicant.

3. The prosecution after registration of case collected evidence about the

residence of the complainant and accused persons in Delhi. Money was

handed over by the complainant in presence of his brother-in-law Santokh

Singh who had accompanied the complainant to Hotel Price Palace. The

evidence shows that Lal Chand and his two sons Surender Singh and Anil

Kumar, both, were present in the Hotel at the time when money was taken by

Lal Chand and handed over to his son. It also came to notice of prosecution

during investigation that another boy namely Balwinder Singh @ Lali was also

present at Hotel Prince Palace and he was also promised to be sent to USA

on similar terms and conditions. However, Lali did not trust Lal Chand and

therefore did not pay money to Lal chand and his sons whereas the present

complainant trusted Lal Chand and paid money. After money was paid, Lal

Chand executed a receipt of taking money from the complainant in Gurmukhi.

He gave an undertaking in writing that in case son of the complainant was not

sent to USA, ` 18.00 lakh would be returned to him. The undertaking cum

receipt is in the handwriting of Lal Chand and is witnessed by his sons

including the present applicant. Proof of stay of all the three accused persons

at Hotel Prince Palace has also been collected by the police.

4. The entire evidence collected by the police shows that applicant along

with his father was in the business of human trafficking by illegal means and

cheating persons. The sum of ` 18.00 lakh, a huge amount, was received by

the accused persons collectively. I find it not a fit case for grant of bail. The

application is dismissed.

NOVEMBER 22, 2010                               SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm