Delhi High Court
L.C. Adlakha vs State (Through Nct Of Delhi) on 21 September, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% BAIL APPLN. 1097/2012
+ Date of Decision: 21st September, 2012
# L.C. ADLAKHA .....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. R.N. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Raj Kapoor &
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates
Versus
$ STATE (THROUGH NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the
State with SI Khalid Akhtar PS
I.P. Estate
Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate
for the complainant
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN:J
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner
who is wanted in a case registered against him at I.P. Estate Police
Station under Sections 420/468/471 IPC vide FIR No. 102/2012 on
the complaint of his own son-in-law Mr. Sandeep Marwah.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has been
getting contracts from CPWD on the basis of documents which he
had forged to show that he was one of the enlisted contractors of
CPWD. He is alleged to have got payments of about half a crore of
rupees from the public exchequer in that fashion. This information
was provided to the police by the petitioner's son-in-law after he
got the information by moving an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 in the office of CPWD to the effect that the
Firms, M/s State Organisation of Builders in the name of which he
was getting contracts was not enlisted as an approved contractor of
CPWD.
3. The investigating agency also now found out from the office
of CPWD that the Firm in the name of which he was doing the
contract work was not on the panel of approved contractors who
could get building contracts etc.
4. The petitioner is now sought to be arrested so that it could be
investigated on the basis of information to be supplied by him in
custody as to how he could manage to get contracts from CPWD
officials when he was not an approved contractor. There is a
possibility of many such persons getting money from the public
exchequer in the manner in which the petitioner was allegedly
getting. The investigating agency needs to find out the
involvement of CPWD officials also in this scandal. This was so
claimed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. Shri R.N. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had
submitted that the petitioner's son-in-law had been helping him in
the said business and since some disputes had arisen between his
son-in-law and the petitioner's daughter a criminal case had been
registered against petitioner's son-in-law at the instance of his
daughter and so only in order to take revenge the complainant had
lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. It was also
submitted by the learned senior counsel, relying upon some
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.", AIR 2011 SC 312 that since the accusations had been made
against the petitioner by his son-in-law with the object of
humiliating him by getting him arrested in a false case, this Court
should grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State strongly
opposed this application on the ground that there were very serious
allegations against the petitioner of defrauding the public
exchequer by resorting to forgery of documents and colluding with
CPWD officials and taking advantage of the fact that at one time
he himself was also employed as an Engineer in CPWD. It was
further submitted that, if at all, complainant himself is also found
to be involved in the conspiracy with his father-in-law and CPWD
officials he will also be not spared and further that even his
involvement is fully established the petitioner cannot get any
benefit.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances, this Court does
not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. This application is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
