Yogesh Chandra Maurya vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 6387 Del

#31
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of decision: 28.08.2015
+       BAIL APPLN. 1777/2015

        YOGESH CHANDRA MAURYA                 .... Applicant
                    Through Mr. M.H. Ansari, Advocate
                           versus
        THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)                 ..... Respondent

Through Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for the State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

Crl. MA No. 12549/2015 (Exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1777/2015

1. The present is an application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 213/2014

under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Paharganj, Delhi.

2. The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that on 18th

October, 2008, there was an annual function held at the School of the

complainant in Ajam Garh, U.P. The said annual function was attended by a

large number of Managers of Schools and their Head Masters. The

applicant, whose niece happens to be married in the same village, was also

invited to attend the said annual function and at that time, the applicant was

also visiting his niece and therefore, he also attended the function. The

applicant disclosed to the gathering that he was a senior official in the

Ministry of Defence and his friends are senior government officials, who

would help the Managers of the Schools in arranging the government aid. It

is alleged to have been stated by him that Government aid would be provided

through an NGO to the extent of Rs. 21 lacs for each of the schools and that

every teacher employed in the said schools would get a salary of Rs. 10,000/-

per month.

3. The complainant and other Managers of the numerous schools who

attended the said annual function were persuaded to come to Delhi in order

to realize their expectation of receiving government aid.

4. In the year 2009, the applicant is alleged to have introduced the

complainant and 7 other Managers of different Schools to the co-accused

Anoop Kumar Meena who was stated to be a close friend of the applicant

and working as a Personal Assistant in the Rail Bhawan. At that time, the

applicant along with the co-accused Anoop Kumar Meena assured the

complainant that they would visit them at their Hotel on that evening.

5. Later that day, the applicant and Anoop Kumar Meena along with

other co-accused namely Suman Satya Narayan; Anwar Khan; and Jamshed

Khan were introduced to the complainants as a Professor; an IAS Officer and

a Financial Advisor to the Railways respectively. The accused induced the

complainants to part with Rs. 5 lacs each on the assurance that the accused

would facilitate aid to their respective schools from the central government

and a further sum of Rs. 1 lac each would also have to be paid if the

government aid as promised was received by the complainant and other

schools.

6. Subsequent thereto, the complainant and the Managers of other

schools came back to Delhi and allegedly handed over to the accused a sum

of Rs. 60 lacs in two installments. Since no government aid as promised was

forthcoming, the complainants approached the accused and were issued

cheques signed by the co-accused Suman Satya Narayan in the sum of Rs. 50

lacs. Upon presentation of the said cheques to the Bank, the same were

dishonoured.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would urge that there are

contradictions between the original complaint dated 8th April, 2010 and the

subject FIR dated 22nd April, 2014.

8. It is urged that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is further

stated that the said cheque of Rs. 50 lacs was not issued by him but by his

co-accused Suman Satya Narayan at the instance of other co-accused Anoop

Kumar Meena.

9. It is also urged that the applicant never visited Azamgarh on the date

of the incident i.e. 18th October, 2008 and therefore, did not attend the

Annual Day Function held at the school of the complainant.

10. It is lastly urged by counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that

he has joined investigation and is cooperating with the Police.

11. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Oberoi, learned APP would urge that the

accused along with his associates induced the complainants to part with a

huge sum of money by withholding the real identity of the other co-accused

persons. It is forcefully urged that the complainant and other Managers of

schools who are poor and innocent villagers have mortgaged their ancestral

lands to arrange the amounts embezzled from them by the applicant and the

other co-accused.

12. The Sessions Judge by way of an order dated 19th August, 2015

rejected the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the present

applicant on the ground that the latter was named in the subject FIR and that

there were serious specific allegations against him.

13. In this behalf, it is observed that no ground has been stated in the

present application refuting the finding returned by the trial Court.

14. Insofar as the question of joining investigation is concerned, the said

assertion made on behalf of the applicant is vehemently refuted on behalf of

the State.

15. It is further noticed that the co-accused are absconding and have yet to

be arrested.

16. In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State represented

by CBI vs. Anil Sharma reported as 1997 Criminal Law Journal 4417, the

Apex Court made the following observations in paragraph 6 of the report

which reads as follows:-

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-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 disinterring many useful information and also 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 to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, has such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

17. In view of the allegations levelled against the accused which are

serious and specific in nature and the circumstance that he is named in the

FIR as the originator of the conspiracy to cheat the poor complainants, I do

not find that this is a fit case for grant of an anticipatory bail and the same is

hereby dismissed.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 28, 2015 sd