Delhi High Court

Prerna @ Bani Sohal & Anr. vs State on 29 February, 2012

Author: V.K.Shali

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+Bail Application No. 227/2012

                                Date of Decision : 29.02.2012

PRERNA @ BANI SOHAL & ANR.         ...... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr.Siddharth Luthra, Sr.
                             Adv. with Mr. A. S.
                             Rastogi, Adv.

                               Versus

STATE                                   ......      Respondent
                             Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP.
                                      Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr.
                                      Adv. with Mr. Puneet
                                      Arora, Adv.

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

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioners in respect of FIR No. 03/2012, under Section

420/468/471/120B/34 IPC, registered by P.S. Greater

Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioner no.1 is the sole

proprietor of an event management concern by the name

of M/s Purple Tree Entertainment.

2. The allegations against the petitioner no.1 are that she

has cheated the respondent/complainant by allegedly

arranging the pre-wedding dance performance to be held

on 20.11.2011 at Celebrations Garden near Shiv Murti,

New Delhi by an artist, named, Miss Urmila Matondkar,

who was allegedly not at all approached by the

petitioners. It has been stated that ultimately the said

performance was done by another artist by the name of

Hard Kaur for which the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.

9,00,000/-. So far as the pre wedding dance

performance by the artist Ms. Urmila Matondkar was

concerned, the fee was settled between the parties at Rs.

13,50,000/- out of which a payment of Rs. 6,50,000/-

was made. It is alleged that this performance was

confirmed by the petitioners by sending a letter of

confirmation. Apart from the aforesaid remuneration

the complainant was required to provide boarding,

lodging in a Five Star Hotel and transport for the entire

troupe in Mercedes and Innova car. Since the said

performance could not materialize, the allegations

against the petitioner no.1 are that she is purported to

have issued two cheques bearing no. 686894 for a sum

of `2,00,000/- and the other cheque bearing no. 686895

`4,67,000/- totaling around `6,67,000/- which were

dishonoured on account of stoppage of payment.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, the

learned senior counsel that the petitioners are prepared

to deposit the said amount of `6,67,000/- or any such

amount with the Court in order to show their bonafides

and they are also prepared to join investigation. It has

also been contended that the petitioners have a minor

son who is a patient of Asthma apart from the old aged

father of the petitioner no.2 who is suffering from various

ailments. It is contended that any order denying the

benefit of anticipatory bail is going to affect these two

family members also.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also

relied upon the case titled Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs.

State 2007(141) DLT 94 wherein this Court had

observed that the law permits interrogation without

subjecting the accused to third degree measures and

certainly custodial interrogation has not been approved

by the High Court in the said case.

5. The learned APP as well as Mr. Vikas Pahwa, the learned

senior counsel for the respondent/complainant have

vehementally opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

6. The submissions of both the learned counsel for the

respondents are that the petitioners had dishonest

intention of cheating the complainant right from the day

one and this fact has been reflected during the course of

the investigation while recording the statement of Mansi

Dogra, an ex-employee of the petitioners, wherein she

has stated that Ms. Urmila Matondkar was not at all

contacted by the petitioners for the pre wedding function

of the daughter of the respondent/complainant. Further,

this fact has been confirmed by the office of the artist

herself, that she was never approached.

7. It has also been contended by the learned senior counsel

for the respondent/complainant that the petitioners not

only had the dishonest intention of cheating the

respondent/complainant by inducing him to part with a

huge amount of money for arranging an artist like Ms.

Urmila Matondkar for the pre-wedding function, but they

also forged certain documents and used the same as

genuine, for and on behalf of two different organizations

like M/s Red Chillies Entertainment Company belonging

to noted actor Shahrukh Khan and Gauri Khan, to show

that the said artist was booked. A letter purported to

have been issued by M/s Red Chillies Entertainment was

shown to the officials of the said company who had

categorically denied that they had no person by the

name of K. Karan Raheja, who was working in their

organization nor the letter which was purported to have

been issued by them was actually issued from their

office.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended

that one of the pleas for grant of anticipatory bail by the

petitioners is the ill health of the father of the petitioner

no.2 while as, an inquiry from the father and other

persons has revealed that the petitioners have not been

residing with him for the last more than 1 ½ years.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned senior counsel for both the parties as well as the

learned APP.

10. I have given my careful consideration to the facts of the

present case. Normally speaking, the provision of

anticipatory bail has been liberally used as directed by

the Apex Court, in cases where there is an allegation of

false implication etc., more particularly in the case of a

woman. Even the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

mandates the grant of bail to women in case the

allegations are regarding commission of an offence

punishable even with life imprisonment. The parameters

which governs the grant of custodial bail are equally

applicable to the anticipatory bail. However, while

keeping these broad parameters in mind, the question

which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners

deserve to be granted bail in the present case or not.

Certainly, the answer in my view is in negative. Because

the reason for this is that the petitioners in the present

case have acted as conman par excellence to make quick

money. I find it very difficult to persuade myself to

extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Prima facie, the petitioners have committed an offence of

cheating, allegedly by not arranging a dance performance

of Ms. Urmila Matondkar for a total consideration of

`13,50,000/-. Moreover, they also seem to have gone to

the extent of forging the documents and using the forged

documents as genuine which were purported to have

been issued by the artist Urmila Matondkar and signing

the same herself (petitioner no.1) as well as the letters

purported to have been issued by M/s Red Chillies

Entertainment, a company owned by a noted film star

through whom the said artist was stated to have been

engaged. All these documents have been found to be

forged and fabricated to gain the confidence of the

complainant to extract money.

11. In this case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of

Mansi Dogra, an ex-employee of M/s Purple Tree

Entertainment, the proprietary concern of the petitioner

no.1 has been read over to the Court. The Red Chillies

Entertainment, on whose behalf the letter is purported to

have been issued by the petitioners is actually signed by

the petitioner no.1 herself for or on behalf of one Mr.K.

Karan Raheja, while as the said organization has denied

having issued any such letter for engaging of any artist

or any person by the said person working in their

organization. A letter is also purported to have been

issued by Ms. Urmila Matondkar herself, on a computer

form and signed by the petitioner no.1 herself,

confirming the engagement of the said artist. This letter

also creates an impression that it is the artist herself who

has confirmed the performance while as the letter is

signed by the petitioner no.1.

12. All these facts clearly show the recklessness and

disrespect towards law in the mind of the petitioners,

who are husband and wife. It seems that the petitioners

have a false notion that they can thrive on falsehood.

They have even gone to the extent to set up the ploy of

the illness of their child and the ill health of the father of

the petitioner no.2 as a ground for grant of anticipatory

bail while as the father himself, on being questioned, has

stated that he has not seen his son and daughter-in-law

as they have not been residing with him for the past 1½

years and perhaps for the right reasons that both the

husband and wife were collecting of easy money by

duping people.

13. Therefore, this is not a case where there are chances of

false implication of the petitioners. On the contrary,

there is a prima facie evidence which shows involvement

of the petitioners to make quick money by duping not

only the complainant but other persons also.

14. The question which arises for consideration is the

interrogation of the petitioners. The interrogation of the

petitioners, no doubt, has to be done by the local police

and the law does not approve of third degree measures,

as has been observed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court nor a custodial interrogation is approved generally

as a system of interrogation. But mere fact that the

learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar

Gupta's case (Supra) has not approved a custodial

interrogation, does not necessarily mean that the

custodial interrogation is prohibited. As a matter of fact,

it has been observed by the Apex Court in the case titled

CBI Vs. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 as under:-

"custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elucidation- oriented than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in gathering many useful information and materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce it to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods cannot be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all the accused in all the criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a reasonable manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

15. This observation of the Apex Court fits very well with the

facts of the present case. This is evident from the fact

that the petitioners had earlier filed an anticipatory bail

application before the Sessions Court which, at the time

of issuance of notice, had granted interim protection

against the arrest of the petitioners on 24.01.2012 and

immediately on 27.01.2012, the petitioner no.1 sent a

letter to the police under her own signatures that she is

under protection of interim bail, and therefore, she is

available herself to join investigation and cooperate with

the same. This letter has been given purposely because

they know that they want to undergo the ritual of