Pinki Chauhan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 2542 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Reserved on: 24th May, 2013
%                                           Date of Decision: 29th May, 2013

+     BAIL APPLN. 732/2013
      PINKI CHAUHAN                                          ..... Petitioner
                               Through:   Mr. Sachin Mishra, Advocate.
                      versus

     STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                   ..... Respondent
                    Through:              Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

                                  JUDGMENT

R.V. EASWAR, J.:

1. This is a bail application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for

anticipatory bail filed by Ms. Pinki Chauhan in case FIR No.211/2012

registered in P.S. Prasad Nagar under sections 420/ 406/ 201/ 120B of the

Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered at the instance of one Harish

Kumar Sharda, son of Kewal Kishan, on 22.09.2012 against one Sandeep and

his company by name M/s. We Can Global, situated at 10th Floor, Vikrant

Tower, Rajindra Place, New Delhi. According to the FIR, the plaintiff was a

resident of Bhanga, Punjab. He saw the advertisement of the aforementioned

company in the Punjab Kesari newspaper dated 03.08.2012, inviting

candidates who desired to go to Singapore. Attracted by the advertisement

the complainant met Sandeep who retained the passport of the complainant

and asked the complainant to undergo a medical examination. On

20.08.2012, the complainant received a phone call from a girl on his mobile

phone and he was informed by her to go to Delhi on 22.08.2012 and meet

Sandeep. Accordingly, the complainant came to Delhi when he was asked to

deposit `25,000/- with the girl who was sitting outside the cabin. The

complainant did as he was told and was issued a receipt for the amount by the

girl whose name, according to the complainant, was Asha.

2. On 27.08.2012, the complainant received a phone call from Sandeep

and was informed that his Singapore visa was ready and he was asked to

deposit the balance amount of `45,000/- in his office on 01.09.2012; the

complainant was also told that he would have to leave for Singapore in the

flight on 05.09.2012. The complainant did as he was told and deposited the

balance amount by demand draft issued by the Pubjab National Bank. He was

issued a receipt for the total amount of `70,000/- by the girl who called

herself Asha. Thereafter he was told by Sandeep to go to Mumbai and stay in

a hotel where a person by name Swamy or Naresh will meet him; a mobile

telephone number was also given to the complainant. But when the

complainant reached Mumbai on 02.09.2012 and tried to contact the number

there was no response. The complainant thereafter contacted Sandeep and

was directed to speak to one Mahima Chauhan whose phone number was

given. On speaking to her, the complainant was told to take rest for a while,

but on 04.09.2012 the owner of the hotel threw the complainant out.

Thereupon the complainant reached Delhi but found the office of M/s. We

Can Global locked. Neither Sandeep nor Mahima Chauhan could give him a

satisfactory reply.

3. On the above facts the complainant requested the police to take action

against Sandeep, Mahima Chauhan and Asha. In fact, the complaint was filed

by several persons - 12 in number - who had the same experience and had

lost their monies.

4. A case was registered under section 420/ 406 of the IPC and further

investigation was directed to be made.

5. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed by Ms. Pinki

Chauhan. It has been stated by her that two persons by name Naresh Kumar

and Arun Kumar were managing and controlling the affairs of M/s. We Can

Global, which was the sister concern of M/s. USA Enterpriser and both were

owned by Naresh Kumar. It is stated that she had initially joined M/s. USA

Enterpriser as an Executive Assistant on 03.05.2012 and was issued an

authority letter on 10.05.2012 for the purpose of handling the cash. She was

assigned the duty and the responsibility of setting up the offices. On

10.07.2012 the applicant resigned from the job since her salary was not being

paid. However, on the very next day she joined the company again at the

request of Naresh Kumar. Another authority letter was issued in favour of the

applicant on 11.07.2012 authorising her to handle cash up to `20,00,000/-.

According to the applicant, this was only for the purpose of taking out money

from the bank and that she was never authorised to take any money from the

client. According to the applicant, she was only following the orders of her

employer and was never involved in actually taking the money for herself or

for her use. She was herself a victim of fraud played by her employer. On

13.10.2012 when she reached the office, she found it locked and all her

attempts to contact the employer were in vain. She states that Naresh Kumar

is due to pay her `90,000/- being the salary for two months. She further states

that she never participated in the business affairs nor was she aware of the

alleged illegal practices of the two companies and that she never received any

payment from any person at any point of time. It is prayed that the case of the

prosecution rests upon the statement of the complainant and other similarly

situated witnesses in various parts of India and there is no chance of her

tampering with the evidence. It is pointed out that both Naresh Kumar and

Arun Kumar are in police custody along with another woman called Ms.

Babita Sharma. The case of the prosecution rests upon the documentary

evidence and since the same is already in police custody the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is not required. It is pointed out that there is no

incriminating evidence for proceeding against the applicant.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

She pointed out that the applicant had assumed a different name while

working for the employment agencies and had collected monies from clients

which cannot be denied. She also pointed out that the applicant was

authorised to handle cash and there is nothing in the letter of authority

suggesting that it is limited to withdrawal from bank. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor further points out that the applicant had travelled to

Mumbai for the work of the two firms and cannot disown her role nor can she

pretend ignorance of the kind of activities carried on by the firms. It is

submitted that despite this Court's orders dated 07.05.2013 and 20.05.2013

the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor, therefore, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

7. After carefully considering the facts on record, the averments in the

complaint and the rival arguments, I am of the view that the applicant may be

granted anticipatory bail. On 24.05.2013 when this Court heard the final

arguments in the matter, the applicant was personally present in the Court.

The complaint does not mention her name directly though the case of the

prosecution is that the applicant was functioning under the name of Asha.

Whether the applicant and Asha are one and the same is a matter to be

investigated and proved. There is no direct averment in the plaint that it was

the applicant who received the cash. Moreover, the applicant claims herself

to be only an employee of the firms without any knowledge of their alleged

illegal activities. The proprietors Naresh Kumar and Arun Kumar as well as

Babita Sharma are already in police custody. I agree with the submission

made on behalf of the applicant that all documentary evidence has already

been recovered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the course of

her arguments referred to a mobile phone and SIM card which was allegedly

destroyed by the applicant. The applicant who was present in Court, denied

this and indicated her readiness to produce the phone as and when required.

8. Taking all the aforesaid facts and circumstances into account, I am of the view that the anticipatory bail should be granted. The same is granted to the applicant subject to her furnishing a personal bond in the amount of `25,000/- and two sureties for a like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO concerned. She is further directed to cooperate in the investigation and appear before the SHO/ IO concerned as and when required. She should not tamper with or attempt to influence the witnesses. She is directed not to leave Delhi without the prior permission of the SHO/IO. In case she holds a passport, the same shall be surrendered to the SHO/IO concerned until further orders. The anticipatory bail is granted subject to the aforesaid conditions.

9. The bail application is allowed in the above said terms.

(R.V. EASWAR) JUDGE MAY 29, 2013 hs