Delhi High Court
Ajay Kapoor vs The State on 31 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 31, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 1777/2014
AJAY KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Veer Singh, Advocate
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI
Shailendra Kumar
Mr. Jaspret S. Rai, Advocate for
complainant-Ashok Seth
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In FIR No.91/2012 under Sections 406/420/120-B of IPC
registered at P.S. E.O.W. (Crime & Railways), Delhi, petitioner seeks
pre-arrest bail while claiming to be innocent.
While entertaining this application, interim protection was granted
to petitioner subject to his joining the investigation.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has joined
the investigation and that petitioner is not named in the FIR nor there are
allegations against petitioner in the charge-sheet filed and so, petitioner
deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Reliance is placed upon
BAIL APPLN. 1777/2014 Page 1
decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591, S.K. Alagh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 662, Nikhil Merchant v.
Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677,
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011)
1 SCC 694 in support of above submissions.
This application was strongly opposed by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State as well learned counsel for
complainant, who submits that petitioner alongwith his co-accused has
cheated to the tune of `12 crores and that the FSL report clearly shows
that petitioner had issued the receipts regarding receiving of gold/cash,
but is dishonestly evading to repay and so, custodial interrogation of
petitioner is necessary to bring out the truth as petitioner has given
evasive replies and has not co-operated with the investigation of this case.
It was pointed out that petitioner has failed to produce his income
tax returns of the relevant period to repel the allegations against petitioner
in the charge-sheet in question. It was submitted on behalf of respondent
that the parameters governing pre-arrest bail as reiterated in Siddharam
Satlingappa (supra) when applied to the facts of the instant case, do not
justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioner.
It was submitted that reliance placed upon decision in S.K. Alagh
(supra) pertaining to the aspect of vicarious liability and Nikhil Merchant
(supra) relating to compounding of offences and Duncans Agro
Industries Ltd. (supra) pertaining to quashing of the complaint has no
application to the facts of the instant case.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
BAIL APPLN. 1777/2014 Page 2
the FIR of this case, the status report and the material on record, I find
that it cannot be said that petitioner has no role to play in cheating
numerous hapless investors to the tune of `12 crores and thus, for
effective investigation, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary.
Interim order is hereby vacated.
Consequentially, petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail is
hereby dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case
lest it may prejudice petitioner when he seeks regular bail.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 31, 2015
s
BAIL APPLN. 1777/2014 Page 3
