Delhi High Court
Kunal Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 17 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1091/2017
Order Reserved On:13th Novermber,2017
Order Pronounced On:17thNovember,2017
KUNAL SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shantanu Sagar and Mr. Jeewesh
Prakash, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')
the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in FIR
No.1160/2015 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at
Police Station, Bindapur, New Delhi. Status Report is on record.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, a complaint was filed on
17.08.2015 by one Mohan Singh who stated therein that he
approached one Govind Singh Bora to arrange for a job for his
son/Amar Singh Bisht; that after 15 days Govind Singh Bora
allured him that on paying Rs. 5 Lakhs, he would get his son
placed in the Railways and also gave assurance that the entire
amount would be refunded in case he fails to procure the said job;
that on the said assurance the complainant arranged Rs. 5 Lakhs by
taking loan from the bank and his relatives and handed over the
same in installments to one Sanjay Kumar upon the directions of
Govind Singh Bora; that the first installment of Rs.1,90,000/- was
handed over to Sanjay Kumar at his residence and the balance
amount was deposited in the petitioner's account; that the
complainant's son was called to Bihar by Sanjay Kumar where he
was given fake employment documents by him; that Sanjay Kumar
took one and a half years time to finalise the recruitment of the
complainant's son in Railways; that after one and a half year, the
complainant realized that he was being cheated by the petitioner
and hence the present complaint was filed.
3. The previous anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner
before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed vide
order dated 26.04.2017. Hence the present petition.
4. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case
and has no connection whatsoever in the alleged incident; that the
petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the only role
attributed to him in the present case is the transfer of around Rs.10
Lakhs in his account from the account of co-accused Sanjay
Kumar; that the ATM Card of the petitioner was borrowed by co-
accused Amit Kumar to receive certain payments from his family
but the same was however misused by the co-accused persons to
transfer Rs.10 Lakhs in his account; that as soon as the petitioner
became aware of the said transfer, he got his account closed; that
the petitioner has been wrongly roped in the present case on the
basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused Amit Kumar and
Sanjay Kumar, and it is a settled law that confessional statement is
not an admissible piece of evidence and as such on that basis the
petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability; that on
being granted interim protection by the Trial Court vide order
dated 19.04.2017, the petitioner joined investigation and presented
himself before the SHO of P.S Bindapur; that hence in the
aforementioned circumstances anticipatory bail be granted to the
petitioner.
5. Per contra Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State strongly
opposed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and
submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required
to effect recovery of the alleged amount and to establish the
identity of the petitioner through TIP; that the petitioner has not
joined investigation and has been purposely evading his arrest, as a
result of which he has been declared Proclaimed Offender vide
order dated 08.06.2017; that two other similar FIR's have been
lodged against the petitioner; that hence the present petition for
grant of anticipatory bail be dismissed.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record.
7. During the course of investigation, the police has recorded the
statement of the complainant's son wherein he disclosed that when
he reached Sonpur, Bihar alongwith other victims, co-accused
Amit Kumar had given him the forged documents, i.e. the joining
letter, ID Card, Offer Letter, Pay-in-Slip and transfer letter of East
Central Railway of Government of India. He further stated that
they were called for training for a period of 5-6 months and a
stipend was given to them.
8. The State has filed its Status Report informing that as per
disclosure made by the co-accused Sanjay Kumar, the amounts
received from the victims/ candidates were transferred to different
persons i.e. Smt. Kanti Devi/mother of co-accused Amit Kumar,
Vipin Kumar and Kunal Singh/present-petitioner.
More particularly it is stated that, an amount of approximately
Rs.10 Lakhs was transferred from the account of co-accused
Sanjay Kumar to the SBI Account No.30060940177 of the
petitioner and the same had also been withdrawn.
9. It has also come on record that the petitioner has been involved in
other similar cases of cheating, in respect of which FIR No.146/17
and FIR No.147/17 respectively, have been registered at PS
Bindapur, New Delhi.
10. Furthermore, the petitioner has been deliberately evading the
process of law, and has been declared Proclaimed Offender, vide
order dated 08.06.2017.
11. Hence considering the fact that the case involves multiple victims
and forgery allegedly in respect of documents attributed to the
Government of India; that large sum of money has been paid by the
victims which has been transferred to the accounts of different
persons including the petitioner who acting in close connivance
with each other have obtained the same on the pretext of providing
jobs to unemployed youth; this Court is of the considered opinion
that no ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail
stands dismissed.
13. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER __, 2017
//gr
