Anand Kumar Verma vs The State (Govt Of Nct Delhi)
2016 Latest Caselaw 584 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                Judgment delivered on : January 27, 2016
+     BAIL APPLN. 2725/2015
      ANAND KUMAR VERMA
                                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through:    Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate
                         versus

      THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI)
                                                            ..... Respondent
                         Through:    Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
                                     Prosecutor for the State
                                     Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate for
                                     respondent No. 2
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                 JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of

regular bail in FIR No.471/15, Police Station Sultanpuri, under

Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The gist of the present case is that the complainant - Rajesh

Kumar lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner alongwith

Chanderpal and Dr. Rohtash have cheated him on the pretext of

getting a job of clerk in M.S. Department of RML Hospital. When

they could not get him the job, they refused to return the moneygiven

by the complainant for the job to them. The complainant also alleged

that petitioner has also cheated Yogesh and Rohtash on the pretext of

Government Job. Investigation was conducted and after completion of

the investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Investigating

Agency. At present the case is pending trial and charge is yet to be

framed. Prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.

3. Mr. Jatan Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are

completely false and frivolous and he has been falsely implicated in

the present case. As per counsel for the petitioner, the present FIR is

the fabrication of the unscrupulous minds of Yogesh, who is also a

witness in the present case, the complainant and the local police

officials. A different version of the story is described in the present

petition. It is further contended that the wife of the petitioner namely

Sangeeta Verma also lodged a complaint on 22.11.2014 against

Yogesh and his accomplices including the complainant in the present

case, but no action has yet been taken on the said complaint.

Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner was compelled to file a

complaint case under Section 190/200 read with Section 156(3) Cr.

P.C.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner

is a simple salesman in a shop of his relative and has no means or

connections to arrange for a government job for the complainant and

witness Yogesh. Moreover, it is contended that no money whatsoever

has been recovered from the petitioner or any of the co-accused

persons and the bank transactions shown by the investigating agency

in the account of the petitioner are only repayment of instalments of

loan, which was acknowledged by the witness Yogesh. It is further

contended that the complainant or the witness Yogesh could not

provide details of the money transaction. It is argued that the role of

the petitioner is similar to the other two co-accused persons namely

Rohtash and Chander Pal and the complainant has failed to provide

any concrete source of money and has made only verbal allegations,

therefore, both Rohtash and Chander Pal have been put in column

No.11 without arrest. But the petitioner was arrested on 17.05.2015

and since then, he is in custody. It is further submitted that the

investigation of the present case is complete and the charge sheet has

already been filed and the matter is pending for framing of charge. As

the affidavit sworn by the petitioner has been sent to FSL, therefore,

the result on that affidavit may take considerable time and in such

circumstance, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the present

case.

5. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the State vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions

raised by counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that during

investigation, disclosure statement of the petitioner was recorded and

according to the disclosure statement he was unemployed and a poor

person and planned to cheat the persons on the pretext of providing

government job in hospitals. According to the prosecution, the

complainant was to be appointed on the post of clerk, Yogesh was to

be appointed as Lab Attendant and Rohtash was to be appointed as

computer operator. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken

10 lac each from complainant and Yogesh and Rs.1 lac from Rohtash.

The petitioner used to call victims from different SIM Cards and used

to assure them on behalf of the Committee Chairman. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also contended that there

has been recovery of qualification and domicile documents from the

petitioner and of one SIM card. As per CDR on record, petitioner

made 100 calls to complainant, 587 times to Yogesh and 74 times to

Rohtash. Lastly, it is contended that the charge sheet is filed but the

charge is yet to be framed. Since material witnesses are yet to be

examined, therefore, the petitioner ought not be granted bail in the

present case.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State.

7. After careful scrutiny of the case and the facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the other

co-accused persons - Rohtash and Chander Pal, who have been

attributed similar roles to the present petitioner have already been

released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 30.06.2015 and

01.08.2015 respectively by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini

Courts, Delhi. This Court also observes that the petitioner is in

custody since 17.05.2015 and the charge sheet has been filed but

charge is yet to be framed against the petitioner. Moreover, the

affidavit sworn by the petitioner is sent to the FSL and the report on

the said affidavit may take considerable time.

8. In view of the aforesaid and keeping in view the fact that the

petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2015; the other co-accused

persons have already released on anticipatory bail and that the FSL

report on the affidavit sworn by the petitioner may take considerable

time, this Court is of considered opinion that continuing the detention

of the petitioner during the pre-trial stage will not be in the interest of

justice.

9. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner - Anand Kumar

Verma be released on bail subject to furnishing his personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court.

10. The petitioner is directed not to tamper with the evidence, not

to influence the prosecution witnesses and shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the Court concerned.

11. However, it is made clear that the observations made above

shall not affect the merits of the case.

12. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present bail application

is disposed of.

Dasti.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANUARY 27, 2016 pkb