Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Jatav vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 7 December, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on 5th November, 2017
Order pronounced on 7th December, 2017
+ BAIL APPLN. 2285/2017
RAVINDER KUMAR JATAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao and Mr. Somdutt
Kaushik, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with
SI Ashok, PS Amar Colony.
Mr. Deepak Kaushik and Mr. T. P.
Singh, Advocates for complainant/ICICI
Bank.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By the present application filed under Section 438 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred as Cr.P.C), the petitioner
seeks Anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 442/17 under Section
420/467/468/471/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code (herein referred to
as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station - Amar Colony, Delhi.
2. The case in hand was registered on the complaint of Mr. Pankaj
Kamra, Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Lajpat Nagar-4 Branch,
New Delhi alleging that on 14.09.2017, an amount of
Rs.1,54,39,500/- was transferred from the account of Shivbachan
Prajapati, an NRI to account of Mohonlal Jhangid vide cheque No.
010453 which was never issued by Shivbachan Prajapati and the
said cheque leaf is still in his possession; that the beneficiary had
BAIL APPLN. 2285/2017 Page 1 of 4
further withdrawn the funds from different branches of the bank
and also transferred the fund to another bank accounts of co-
accused persons namely Mohan Lal Jangid and Bibhas Kumar
Parida; that on reviewing the CCTV footage of a transaction, it was
found that Bibhas Kumar Parida was accompanied by Sandeep
Bhalla and Vineet Kumar Pandey; that co-accused Sandeep Bhall
was arrested who disclosed that the petitioner had induced one
Sandeep Bhalla to collect information pertaining to some NRI and
the petitioner had deposited the fake cheque in the ICICI Bank of
Hisar Branch for debiting Rs.1,54,39,500/- from the account of the
customer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has
no role to play in the entire episode and has been falsely implicated
in the present case merely on the disclosure statement of one of the
accused, Sandeep Bhalla; that there is no allegation against the
petitioner in the FIR; that the petitioner does not know Sandeep
Bhalla and only knows Sanjay Bhargava whom the petitioner
helped in availing loan on his car; that Sanjay Bhargava was
supposed to pay the promised commission which is still unpaid,
due to which he turned hostile and to get rid of the obligation, the
accused has taken the name of the petitioner.
4. Learned APP for State opposed the bail application and contended
that the petitioner is the main conspirator/mastermind of the entire
fraud committed with the bank and is in possession of
Rs.75,00,000/- cash, which is to be recovered and other accused in
the case is yet to be arrested who is known to the petitioner unearth
BAIL APPLN. 2285/2017 Page 2 of 4
the entire conspiracy; that the investigation is at the primary stage
and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Perusal of the record shows that during investigation co-accused
Sandeep Bhalla and Vineet Kumar Pandey were arrested and they
disclosed that petitioner asked Sandeep Bhalla to collect
information about some NRI having an account in ICICI Bank and
had induced him that he was in possession of a fraud cheque and
had allured him to give him handsome amount. Co-accused
Sandeep Bhalla further disclosed that co-accused Budhdev Bhenjjo
provided him the account No. 000401202700 of Mohanlal Jhangid
which he forwarded to the petitioner who transferred
Rs.1,54,39,500/- to the said account from the account of
Shivbachan Prajapati out of which Rs.90,10,000/- were withdrawn
and Rs.64,00,000/- were transferred in other accounts,
Rs.10,00,000/- were given to co-accused Sandeep Bhalla and
Rs.5,00,000/- to co-accused Vineet Kumar Pandey and
Rs.75,00,000/- to the petitioner.
7. Perusal of the record further shows that while praying for
anticipatory bail before the Trial Court, the petitioner gave two
addresses one of Hapur, UP and other at Delhi but he was not
found at the given address. Efforts were made to contact him over
phone and finally NBWs were issued against him.
BAIL APPLN. 2285/2017 Page 3 of 4
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
9. Observations made in the order shall have no bearings on the
merits of the case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017
gr
