Deepak Singh vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 1369 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        BAIL APPLN. 1661/2010
                                              Decided on 09.03.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :

        DEEPAK SINGH                    ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr. R.A. Worso Simik with
                        Mr. Kahorngam Simik, Advs.
                   versus
        STATE                 ..... Respondent
                        Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State
                        with Investigating Officer.
CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may          No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?         No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                 No
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439

read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for grant of bail in case FIR

No.137/2009 lodged against him by one Mr. Sultan Singh under Sections

420/120B IPC registered with PS R.K. Puram (Crime Branch), New Delhi.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case and in fact he has nothing to do with

the aforesaid complaint and that he does not have any knowledge as to how

the sum of `30,000/- came to be deposited through a cheque in his account,

maintained by him with State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. He

further states that the petitioner is a businessman based at Guwahati, who

has been travelling all over the country and was completely unaware of the

aforesaid deposit. It is stated that the aforesaid deposit was discovered by

the petitioner, only after he was confronted by the police on the basis of the

FIR lodged by the complainant. He further states that the prosecution has

been delaying the proceedings before the learned ACMM, due to which the

petitioner is suffering as he has remained in custody ever since 14.9.2009.

3. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the present

petition. He submits that on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. Sultan

Singh, the aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 420/120B IPC with

PS R.K. Puram (Crime Branch), New Delhi. In the course of the

investigation, the accused person, namely, Mr. Colin, was arrested in

August, 2009. After his arrest, the petitioner herein, described as Deepak

Singh @ Roshan Lal, was also arrested on 19.9.2009 and then it was

revealed that the co-accused Mr. Colin had given 7 bank account numbers to

the complainant to deposit money therein. It is stated that out of the

aforesaid 7 bank account numbers, one bank account belongs to the

petitioner, in which a sum of `30,000/- was deposited. It is further stated

that the real name of the petitioner is Roshan S/o Shri Chander Mohan

Singh, but he got a PAN Card bearing No.CDIPS9403G prepared in the name

of Deepak S/o Shri Rajen Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid forged PAN

Card and by giving wrong information, the petitioner opened the aforesaid

bank account with the State Bank of India, Malviya Nagar, Delhi.

4. It is submitted that in the course of investigation, when the

Investigating Officer contacted the erstwhile employer of the petitioner, i.e.,

Mr. Ashok Kumar, 89, Village & Post Office Ghitorni, Delhi, under whom the

petitioner had worked as an Office Boy in the year 2009, it was found that in

the resume submitted by the petitioner to his employer, the name of the

petitioner is mentioned as Roshan Singh S/o Shri Rajen Singh R/o B-5, 2nd

Floor, 938, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, and that a photograph of

the petitioner was also pasted in the said resume. It is submitted that the

petitioner had been collecting emoluments from his employer under

signatures in the same name. It is found that for obtaining the aforesaid

PAN Card, the petitioner had submitted with his application form, a

photocopy of a school leaving certificate, stated to have been issued by the

Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, East Patel Nagar, New

Delhi. On inquiry, it was found that no such school existed in the said

area. Lastly, it is submitted that when the Investigating Officer approached

the National Security Depository Ltd., with the particulars of the PAN Card

of the petitioner, he was informed that the aforesaid PAN Card was issued on

an application submitted by the petitioner in the name of Deepak Singh, on

the strength of the aforesaid school leaving certificate, which has now turned

out to be forged. It is therefore submitted by the learned APP that the co-

accused Colin @ Jude and Peter along with the petitioner and a few others

are members of an organized gang that has been deceiving people and

fraudulently inducing them to deposit money in their accounts.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e. 21.1.2011, counsel for the

petitioner had made a submission that inordinate delay had been caused by

the prosecution in the progress of the case and that the petitioner has

remained in custody since 14.9.2009, and that despite the fact that the

charge sheet was filed on 19.11.2009, arguments on charge have yet not

been addressed even after passing of one year. On that day, the Learned

APP for the State was directed to file an additional status report indicating

therein the reason for the delay in the progress of the case. The current

status of the case was also directed to be intimated to the Court today.

6. Learned APP for the State hands over an additional status report

today, wherein it is stated that on the last date of hearing fixed before the

learned ACMM, Saket Courts, i.e., 5.3.2011, arguments were heard on

behalf of the accused Mr. Colin, and an adjournment was sought on behalf of

the accused Deepak Singh, who was produced in custody before the court

below, on the ground that his counsel was not available. He states that the

next date of hearing, for arguments on charge on behalf of the petitioner, is

17.3.2011. Copy of the order sheet of 5.3.2011 is handed over by the

learned APP for the State, wherein the learned ACMM has recorded that the

adjournment is sought on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of

unavailability of his counsel.

7. The aforesaid status report falsifies the submission made by the

counsel for the petitioner that the delay in the progress of the case has been

caused by the prosecution.

8. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. However, neither party

shall seek any adjournment on the date fixed before the learned ACMM, i.e.,

17.3.2011. After arguments are addressed on charge, the learned ACMM

shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.

                                                      HIMA KOHLI,J
      MARCH       09, 2011
      sk