Delhi High Court
State vs Bhuvnesh Chaturvedi & Ors. on 8 September, 2014
Author: V.P.Vaish
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08th September, 2014
+ CRL. M.C. No.2421/2012
STATE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP for the
State with DCP/ EOW S.D.
Mishra, ACP/EOW Mahesh
Tholia and SHO/ Badarpur
Aishvir Singh.
versus
BHUVNESH CHATURVEDI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 482 read with Section 439(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟)
for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents/ accused
persons vide order dated 21.01.2009 passed by this Court in case FIR
No.61/2008 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at P.S.
Badarpur, New Delhi.
2. None has appeared on behalf of respondents despite pass over.
Learned counsel for respondents had appeared on 18.10.2012,
27.02.2013, 11.04.2013 and 07.05.2013 only and thereafter, neither the
respondents nor their counsel had appeared in the present petition.
3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that M/s. Life
Business Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and its Directors employed more
than 2500 IT/MBA students as IT Professionals/ Engineers through
campus placement and were assigned job of developing a software
namely „EMS‟ on the pattern of well-known software program „ERP‟.
The said company and its Directors collected security varying from
Rs.75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- from each employee and thus, collected a
total approximate sum of Rs.21 or 22 crores from them. As per the
terms, the security was refundable within a period of sixteen months
and initially the employees were promised a stipend of Rs.2,500/-
(Rupees Two thousand five hundred) for four months and on their
continuation, the company promised them to pay packages of Rs.1.5
lakhs to Rs.2.4 lakhs. However, neither the petitioners were paid their
salaries nor refunded their security money nor the alleged software
namely „EMS‟ was developed. On the complaint of Mr. Paras Kumar,
a case bearing FIR No.61/2008 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC was
registered at P.S. Badarpur, New Delhi.
4. The respondents moved an application for anticipatory bail
bearing Bail Application No.2124/2008 before this Court and vide
order dated 21.01.2009, the said application was disposed of with the
following observations: -
"6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
this case and having heard the counsel for the parties, I
am of the considered view that the interim protection
granted to the petitioners should continue only till such
time the petitioners fully cooperate in the investigations.
In case petitioners are required for custodial interrogation
or that they do not cooperate in the investigation, State
may take steps accordingly.
7. In the event of their arrest petitioners are ordered
to be released on bail on each of them furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer/ SHO. This protection would continue
for two days during which period it will be open for the
petitioners to seek regular bail. With these directions,
petition stands disposed of."
5. The State has preferred the present petition for cancellation of
bail granted to the respondents vide order dated 21.01.2009.
6. Learned APP for the State contends that the respondents are not
joining the investigation. He also submits that respondent No.1
Bhuvnesh Chaturvedi had joined the investigation only once on
14.05.2009 and thereafter, he was not available for any investigation.
He also submits that several notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were
issued to respondents but notices could not be served as the premises
were found locked. He further submits that notice under Section 160
Cr.P.C. was also issued to counsel for respondents, but to no avail.
7. A perusal of order dated 21.01.2009 demonstrates that the
interim protection granted to the respondents (petitioners in bail
application) was to continue till the time the respondents fully
cooperate in the investigations. In case, respondents are required to be
present for custodial interrogation or that they do not cooperate in the
investigation, State may take steps accordingly. It was also observed
that the protection would continue for two days, during which period it
will be open for the respondents to seek regular bail. According to
State, respondent No.1 had joined the investigation only once. The
respondents are neither joining nor cooperating with the investigation.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, if
the respondents are not joining the investigation, the investigating
agency is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014
hs
