Delhi High Court
Sunil Sharma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 11 June, 2015
Author: S. Muralidhar
$~6, 7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1170/2015
SUNIL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Malik and Mr. Vivek
Jaiswal, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for
the State with SI Ashwani
Kumar
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for
Dhanlaxmi Bank
With
+ BAIL APPLN. 1171/2015
RAMKESH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Malik and Mr.
Vivek Jaiswal, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for
the State with SI Ashwani
Kumar.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for
Dhanlaxmi Bank
Bail Applications 1170, 1171 & 1172/2015 Page 1 of 5
and
+ BAIL APPLN. 1172/2015
NARENDAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suhail Malik, Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Malik and Mr.
Vivek Jaiswal, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Addl. PP for
the State with SI Ashwani
Kumar.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for
Dhanlaxmi Bank
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
ORDER
% 11.06.2015
CRL. MA Nos. 8847-49/2015 (Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1170-72/2015
3. These are three applications seeking anticipatory bail in proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 11/2014 under Sections 406, 420 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station: Economic
Offences Wing, Central District.
4. All the three Petitioners are accused in the FIR. According to the
Petitioners, the main accused shown at Sl. Nos. 1 to 6 at Column No.
11 of the charge sheet have already been arrested and granted bail
after remaining in custody for around six months.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Suhail Malik, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, that for the last 17 months, the Petitioners have not been
sought to be arrested. Their custody in any event is not required, now
that the investigation is complete. He states that none of them received
any notice to join investigation. He states that they are illiterate and
economically weak persons, who were not aware of the alleged
conspiracy involving the main accused. The Petitioners claim to be
victims of the fraud committed by the main accused.
6. Secondly, it is submitted by Mr. Malik that the Petitioners are till
date not aware of the NBWs issued against each of them on two
occasions. He submits that although a notice under Section 82 of the
CrPC may have been published in the newspapers, none of the
Petitioners is yet to be formally declared a 'Proclaimed Offender'.
Thirdly, he submitted that some of the other co-accused, who are
similarly placed, have been granted benefit of stay of arrest by this
Court by order dated 29th May, 2015 in Bail Applications No. 1096,
1097 and 1098 /2015.
7. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned Additional Public Prosecutor ('APP')
opposes the prayer and submits that the Petitioners have been
absconding for more than 17 months now. Twice, NBWs have been
issued against them. He states that the notice under Section 82 CrPC
against the Petitioners has been published in Hindustan Times as well
as Dainik Jagran. The notices under Section 82 CrPC have been made
returnable on 25th June 2015. He submits that the above facts hold true
for the other co-accused whose arrest has been stayed by this Court. It
is possible that they were not brought to the notice of the Court at that
stage. Mr. Saxena states that the offences are serious in nature and
warrant no leniency, at this stage.
8. At the outset, the Court notes that the Petitioners on their own
showing have been aware of and have been following the proceedings
qua the main accused. Despite that, they consciously failed to
cooperate with the investigating agency by joining investigation for
over 17 months now. In a case like this where the Petitioners were
avoiding the process of law for the last 17 months, where NBWs have
been issued twice against them, and proceedings under Section 82 of
the CrPC have been initiated, grant of the interim relief of
anticipatory bail at this stage will amount to placing a premium on
law avoidance.
9. As far as the bail applications of other similarly placed co-accused
are concerned, only a temporary stay of arrest has been ordered. It is
not clear if the Court was made aware of the fact that NBWs have
been issued and that NBWs were issued against those Petitioners as
well.
10. In the circumstances, the Court finds that no ground has been
made out for the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners.
11. The applications are dismissed.
S.MURALIDHAR
(Vacation Judge)
JUNE 11, 2015/rs
