Delhi High Court
Prasanjit Bera vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 August, 2016
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: August 3, 2016
+ BAIL APPLN. 676/2016
PRASANJIT BERA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil Sharma, Ms. Deepa Sharma,
Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
Mr. Rajiv Sharma and Ms. Monica
Nagi, Advocate for respondent No. 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
ORDER
% 03.08.2016
P.S. Teji, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 482
of Cr. P.C., the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case
registered vide FIR No.905/2015 under Section 420/506/406/34 of
IPC at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of Harish
Chander Anand, who submitted in his complaint that the petitioner
had a license to import-export gold. The petitioner fraudulently
assured the complainant that he will give him gold at a low price and
consequently he received Rs.60 lacs in cash and gold ornaments for
his family members from the complainant by giving false
representations. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded his
money and the gold ornaments back, the petitioner refused to return
the same and started threatening the complainant.
3. Perusal of the order dated 21.04.2016 reveals that the petitioner
was granted interim protection subject to his joining the investigation
as and when required. It was also directed that the petitioner shall not
leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has joined the
investigation.
4. Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that though the petitioner has joined the investigation but
during investigation, it is found that the petitioner has cheated and
induced and received the cash and jewellery from other persons also
and four complaints indifferent police stations are pending. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has submitted the mobile phone
and CC TV recording in which the petitioner has been admitting to
return cash and gold ornaments to the victim and the application for
seeking permission for taking voice sample of the petitioner and
complainant is pending before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
The petitioner is also not cooperating in the investigation and custodial
investigation of the petitioner is required for interrogation in detail to
find out whether he has kept the money in any account, locker or any
such places. Moreover, the petitioner owns the passport and there is
every apprehension that he may flee away from the country. NBWs
have already been issued against the petitioner and he is willfully
absconding to avoid his arrest. In these circumstances, it is prayed that
the petitioner be not granted anticipatory bail in this case.
5. I have heard the submissions of both the sides and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court observes that the petitioner
has already joined the investigation and the State has made only
averments regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the present
case, however no documentary evidence has been placed on record so
far. In such a situation, considering the fact that the petitioner has
already joined the investigation, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner - Prasanjit Bera, subject to his
joining the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer by notice in writing.
6. In view of the facts of this case, it is hereby ordered that in the
event of arrest, the petitioner - Prasanjit Bera be released on bail
subject to furnishing of personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer.
7. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when
required by notice in writing and to cooperate in the investigation of
the present case. He is further directed not to leave the country without
prior permission of the concerned Court.
8. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing
contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final
opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the
case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of
the trial.
9. With aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed
of.
10. Dasti.
P.S.TEJI, J
AUGUST 03, 2016
pkb
