Delhi High Court
Aman Gupta vs State on 7 August, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 7th August, 2015
+ BAIL APPL. No. 1503/2015
AMAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Nittin Mittal, Advocate
with Mrs.Veena Mittal,
mother of the Petitioner in
person.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Ravi Kumar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the
State with Inspector Parveen
Ahlawat, ATO/PS Rani
Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 439 read with Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner for grant of
bail in case bearing FIR No.979/2014 registered at Police Station Rani
Bagh, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120-B
IPC.
2. It is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2015. During
his judicial custody, the petitioner was granted interim bail vide order
dated 29.05.2015 as he assured the Court that he will arrange some
reasonable amount. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner offered an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-, however, the said amount was not accepted by the Court
against the alleged cheated amount of more than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one
crore), therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the
interim protection granted vide order dated 29.05.2015 was recalled by
this Court vide its order dated 07.07.2015. Consequently, he was directed
to surrender before the Jail Authorities by 5.00 PM on that date itself.
Since then, the petitioner is in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
there was no committee business and rather the petitioner alongwith his
father Tejpal Gupta was framed and implicated in the present case falsely
and there was only business transactions/rivalry of the amount between
Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,00,000/- and even the goods are lying in the shop
which are to be returned to the complainants of the case.
4. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to assurance given by
the learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.05.2015, the petitioner and his
mother tried their level best but could not arrange the money. Somehow
the mother of the petitioner has arranged an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, i.e.,
Demand Draft No.015288 dated 02.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
and Demand Draft No.015356 dated 14.07.2015 for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- both drawn on Axis Bank Limited Derawal Nagar, New
Delhi, in the name of the Registrar of this Court, Annexure P-7 and P-8
respectively. Apart from this, mother of the petitioner, who is present in
person, has also brought a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash.
5. Learned counsel submits that as per the chargesheet, the total
amount allegedly involved is Rs.1,00,91,681/-, whereas in the status
report filed by the prosecution in this case, the amount is more than
Rs.6,00,00,000/-. Even if it is presumed that a committee business was
going on between the parties, then also, the said business cannot involve
this huge amount. He submits that these are all disputed facts, the
petitioner has already remained in custody for more than four months,
moreover, the petitioner has recently completed B.Tech (Mechanical)
from I.P.University, searching for employment and has no knowledge of
the business transactions of his father, thus, the petitioner may be released
on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the State submits that in this case main accused is Tejpal
Gupta, father of the petitioner. During investigation, father of the
petitioner was taken into police remand, police visited the shop No.2901,
Sant Nagar, Rani Bagh, Delhi, on 14.03.2015 and seized some documents
from there. This shop has been taken on rent by petitioner's father Tejpal
Gupta. The petitioner in his bail applications dated 21.03.2015 and
24.03.2015 has accepted that they were running some committees.
However, all the committees being operated by the petitioner and his
father were illegal as they are not having any license for the same.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the
specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused have been sent to
FSL, Rohini, for seeking opinion. The result of the same is still awaited.
Out of the said receipts, one receipt of Rs.30,240/- dated 01.07.2014 has
been issued by the petitioner, whereas all the slips were alleged to be
signed by his father Tejpal Gupta. Since the petitioner and his father
are the main culprits, who have cheated a number of complainants,
thus, the petitioner should not be released on bail.
8. The fact remains that the petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2015.
Thereafter vide order dated 29.05.2015, interim bail was granted to him
and he remained out of judicial custody for about one month. Since the
petitioner could not arrange the reasonable amount except Rs.2,00,000/-,
which was not accepted by the Court, the said interim protection was
recalled by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2015 with a direction to
surrender before the Jail Authorities. Further amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
was arranged by the petitioner and his mother and an additional amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is also arranged by the mother of the petitioner, as stated
above. However, she shows her inability to arrange more than that
amount.
9. It is an admitted case that role of the petitioner is that he was
helping in the business of his father, he is not the main culprit, allegedly
signed only one receipt amounting to Rs.30,240/- dated 01.07.2014 and
already remained in judicial custody for around four months. Therefore,
I am of the opinion that the present petitioner may be released on bail.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
11. It is directed that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, as detailed in
Annexure P-7 and P-8, and the additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- stated to
be brought today by mother of the petitioner in cash, totalling
Rs.5,50,000/- be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within
three days without prejudice to his rights and contentions.
12. On deposit, the Registrar General shall keep the said amount in the
form of FDR with UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi
initially for a period of one year to be renewed periodically.
13. I hereby make it clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the above
mentioned amount, the State is at liberty to move application for recalling
of this order.
14. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.
15. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties under the signature of the Court Master.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 07, 2015
sb
