Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Jha vs State Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1961/2017
Order Reserved On:15th November,2017
Order Pronounced On:20th November,2017
RAJ KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal Madan, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Ajay Kumar, Cyber Cell, Crime
Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.')
the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 95/2017
under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC') registered at P.S Crime Branch, Delhi. The
petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 22.08.2017.
Status report is on record.
2. Brief facts of the present case as reflected in the FIR are that a
complaint was lodged on 23.06.2017 by one Shrikant Achary who
alleged that he received a call from one Tanya on behalf of
ClickJob (job consultancy) who offered him a job through the said
consultancy on the payment of a consideration of Rs.18,000/-; that
on the said offer, the complainant made a payment of Rs.18,000/-
through net banking; that thereafter the complainant received
several calls on behalf of ClickJob, from different numbers and he
was made to pay a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- to ClickJob
on the false assurance of securing him a job; that despite paying the
entire amount charged by ClickJob, the complainant was neither
given the job nor was the amount charged from him refunded; that
that the said consultancy has since then avoiding the calls made by
the complainant and hence the present complaint has been lodged.
3. The present petitioner has previously filed four bail applications
before the Trial Court, however the same have been dismissed vide
orders dated 26.08.2017, 29.08.2017,14.09.2017 and 21.09.2017.
4. Mr. Kunal Madan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that the present complaint has been lodged against ClickJob-a unit
of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioner has been
arrested merely on the statement of the main accused Sanjeet Singh
who is the director of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.; that the
petitioner's firm M/s ARV Busines Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has entered
into a contract with M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. for providing
telecalling services to ClickJob; that the petitioner's firms was
merely a BPO centre providing telemarketing services on the
instructions of ClickJob to inform its customers about the services
offered by clickjob.com; that the obligation to provide the services
offered by clickjob.com was completely of its own and the
petitioner's firm was not liable for commitments made by the
company ClickJob; that after initial interactions with the
customers, the payments charged from the customers was directly
paid to clickjob.com and the petitioner's firm was not a beneficiary
whatsoever in the said transactions; that the petitioner's firm is
merely providing services to ClickJob, for which it is being paid by
M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; that the entire amount as
alleged in the FIR has already been paid to the complainant; that
the main accused Sanjeet Kumat Singh has already been enlarged
on regular bail and the other co-accused persons i.e. Ms. Barkha
and Ms. Pooja, have been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial
Court; that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in
judicial custody for a prolonged period and hence he be released on
regular bail as prayed for.
5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed the bail
application of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a
Director of M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which has
entered into a contract with ClickJob and both these entities are
persuading people with false job assurances; that similar other
complaints have also been lodged against the present petitioner
alleging the same offence; that investigation in the present case is
ongoing and hence the petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that, as per the agreement dated
04.01.2016 entered into between M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd./
firm owned by main accused and M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt.
Ltd./petitioner's firm, the latter is engaged by the former to market
and sell the product namely Resume Services through the website
clickjob.com. which is a unit of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd.
The agreement provides that the revenue sharing would be to the
proportion of 65% for M/s ARV Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and
35% for M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. It has also been stated
therein that the entire revenue generated by the parties to the
contract, will be collected in the name of M/s Perspi Interactive
Pvt. Ltd. Therefore from the above, it is clear that the petitioner's
firm has been merely providing a platform for disseminating the
services offered by ClickJob to the public. Also the amount which
is charged from the public for the services so offered is credited
directly in the name of M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. and not to
the petitioner's firm. Therefore the ultimate beneficiaries in the said
transactions M/s Perspi Interactive Pvt. Ltd. that is owned by the
main accused Sanjeet Singh.
8. As per records, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was charged from the
complainant on the false assurance of providing him a job, out of
which a sum of Rs.62,000/- was alleged to have been paid by him
on the call made on behalf of the petitioner's firm. However the
entire amount as charged from the complainant has been refunded
back to him by the main accused Sanjeet Singh. Hence no recovery
is yet to be effected from the present petitioner.
9. Furthermore, the Trial Court has granted regular bail to the main
accused Sanjeet Singh vide order dated 20.09.2017 and
anticipatory bail to other co-accused persons namely Pooja and
Barkha vide order dated 20.09.2017.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
i) That the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to
the satisfaction of Trial Court concerned;
ii) that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and
make himself available for interrogation by police officer as
and when required;
11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
12. 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.
13. Copy of this Order be given dasti, under the signatures of the Court
Master.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
//gr
