Delhi High Court
Anand Swaroop Arora vs State on 22 December, 2015
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN.1077/2015
Date of decision: 22.12.2015
ANAND SWAROOP ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Maninder Singh and
Ms.Aekta Vats, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No.270/2010
(P.S.Ambedkar Nagar), initially instituted for the offence under
Sections 420/120B IPC but chargesheet having been submitted under
Sections 409/406/420/467/471/120B IPC.
2. One Rita Chhabra lodged a complaint alleging that the
petitioner runs a NGO under the name and style of Anand Jan Sewa
Society. In the aforesaid NGO, the complainant invested an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/- on being deceived by an agent of the petitioner namely
Heena. The complainant was induced to believe that her deposits
would be trebled in a short span of time. This was obviously a wrong
promise.
3. After lodging of the aforementioned case, the petitioner was
arrested on 10.09.2010. During the period when the aforesaid case was
being investigated, many other FIRs came to be registered. However,
after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against
the petitioner and others on 06.12.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though charges
were framed against the petitioner under Sections 409 read with
Section 120 B IPC and in the alternative under Section 420 read with
Section 120B IPC, but no witness as yet could be examined at the
trial.
5. While pressing for bail, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2010 and till
date the trial has not commenced in the sense that no witness has been
examined.
6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
there are many connected FIRs and speaking in a composite way,
there would be not less than 2500 witnesses cited in the list of
witnesses in the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
also submitted that in some of the connected FIRs, the petitioner has
been granted bail while in some he is in custody.
7. Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP on the other hand submits that the
petitioner was the President of NGO namely Anand Jan Sewa Society
and he has dishonestly misappropriated the deposits of the gullible
investors. Initially the schemes of the NGO of which petitioner was
the president related to the distribution of ration and household items
but later, gradually, the NGO started dabbling in cash returns. It was
further submitted that during investigation, cash amounting to
Rs.28,98,499/- was recovered from the house of the petitioner. Apart
from the aforestated money in cash, other valuables also were
recovered. On a rough estimation, Ms.Pandey, APP submits that there
would be around 1600 complainants/victims, all of whom have been
cited as witnesses and they were duped of approximately Rs.20 crores.
Uptil now, it is submitted, around 8500 complaints have been received
in EOW against the NGO (Anand Jan Sewa Society) and its
functionaries and the total amount involved is approximately Rs.80
crores. Learned APP has also taken reference of six more FIRs which
have been registered in EOW against the NGO (Anand Jan Sewa
Society) which are pending investigation.
8. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40, the Supreme
Court held that
"... the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail.
The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more
than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
9. Though nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in
case of conviction as well as reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant are
some of the important considerations while granting or refusing bail
but in the case in hand, one cannot forget that chargesheet has already
been submitted. Even after framing of charges, not a single witness
has been examined. The sheer magnitude of the economic deprivation
of investors makes it very obvious that at the trial there will be number
of witnesses to support the prosecution version. A trial in a case of this
kind cannot take place in a hurried manner. Any haste shown by the
Trial Court in such matters would only occasion failure of justice.
10. This Court is conscious of the fact that for an offence under
Section 409 IPC, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life
but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency has already completed investigation and the trial
has not begun.
11. It would be difficult to countenance a situation when the
petitioner would be refused bail and there will be no possibility of the
trial against him being concluded even in distant future.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts, in the opinion of this Court,
despite the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the losses
suffered by the investors/victims, the petitioner has become entitled to
bail.
13. For the aforestated reasons, the petitioner is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court.
14. The aforesaid grant of bail is subject to the condition: (a) that
the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other
authority; (b) the petitioner shall remain present before the Court on
all dates and shall not absent himself for two consecutive dates
without any plausible explanation; (c) if the petitioner has a passport,
the same shall be surrendered by him immediately to the investigating
officer of this case; (d) the petitioner shall participate in the
investigation of other FIRs and would offer all assistance to the
investigating agency; (e) the petitioner shall furnish his mobile
telephone number and the mobile telephone number of his sureties to
the Trial Court at the time of furnishing of bail bond so that he could
be tracked down in case of his deliberate and wilful avoidance either
in the hearing of the matter or for the purposes of investigation of
other FIRs; (f) the petitioner shall keep his telephone in operational
mode and shall not switch off the same and (g) the petitioner shall not
move out of the territorial limits of Delhi without seeking prior
approval of the Trial Court.
Should the petitioner violate any one of the terms and
conditions stated above, it would be open for the investigating agency
to move an application for cancellation of his bail.
The application is disposed of with the aforestated observations.
Crl.M.A No.15756/2015
1. In view of the application having been disposed of, the instant
application has become infructuous.
2. The application is disposed of accordingly.
Dasti.
DECEMBER 22, 2015/k ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
