Delhi High Court
Kewal Krishan vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 October, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2129/2017 & CRL.M.A. 17323/2017
Order reserved on 26th October, 2017
Order pronounced on 30th October, 2017
KEWAL KRISHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Gita Dhingra, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP with SI
Arvind Kumar, P.S. Vivek Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
CRL. M. A. No. 17323/2017
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2129/2017
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC
read with Section 482 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail in
case FIR No. 425/2017 under Section 419/420/467/471/170/
120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station - Vivek Vihar on the
allegation that the accused persons extorted money from the
complaint on the pretext of getting him a government job to
him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
is a permanent resident of Delhi and joined the Cyber Café
owned by his brother-in-law about two and half years; that has
no role to play in the alleged offence as he never downloaded
any format or fed it in the computer of the Cyber Café; that any
customer can use the system and take the printouts on payment
of certain charges; that he has not been named in the
complaint/FIR; that he joined the investigation as and when
called by the Investigating Officer served him a notice under
Section 41(1) Cr.PC.
3. Status report has been filed by the State.
4. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the present
application and argued that the petitioner played an important
role in the entire episode of extorting money from the
complainant. She further added that the petitioner has every
knowledge about the entire forged game played by the accused
persons and he played a vital role in the entire episode; that the
petitioner in connivance of other accused persons got the print
out of the forged documentfrom the internet.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. According to the prosecution, the complainant/Asif Ali met
accused Rawendra Singh for getting a job through his brother.
Accused Rawendra Singh introduced himself as a CBI Officer
and promised to manage a Government job. The complainant
was called at Lucknow where he gave Rs.3,50,000/- to accused
Rawendra Singh and his brother Ankit Singh and certain forms
were filled. Thereafter, the complainant was called at Kanpur
and his signatures were obtained on a register for training. The
complainant was called at Unnaw for training where he was
informed that someone else would attend training on his behalf
and he was given an Identity Card and informed that he has
been appointed in FCI. Later on the Identity Card was taken
back and informed that the same will be given at the time of
joining. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that he has
been declared a permanent employee by the Court and
Rs.5,000/- were taken from the complainant towards Court Fee.
The complainant was given an Identity Card and asked to join at
Fatehabad, Haryana in first week of August. Later, the
complainant came know that he has been cheated.
7. On 27.08.2017, accused Ankit Singh was arrested and a fake
CBI Identity Card and four appointment letters were of
Northern Railway were recovered from his possession. At the
instance of accused Ankti Singh, co-accused Ajeet Singh was
arrested and a laptop used for preparation of forged documents
alongwith appointment letters of SBI, signed OMR Sheets,
stamps etc. were recovered from his possession. Later, co-
accused Ravendra and Gyanendra arrested and many
incriminating documents were seized from their possession.
8. During interrogation, accused Gyanendra disclosed that
petitioner prepared the fake documents. The petitioner joined
the investigation and stated that he took Rs.50 each page for
printing the material provided by the accused Gyanendra. He
further stated that he used to fill up the names of the victims in
the blank formats of concerned department on the direction of
the accused Gyanendra. Some formats in the computer of the
petitioner were found to be the same as the hard copies
recovered from the possessions of other accused persons.
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court and further subject to :
i) That the petitioner shall not leave the National Capital
Territory of Delhi without the prior permission of the
Trial Court;
ii) That the petitioner shall remain present on each date of
hearing before the Trial Court;
iii) That the petitioner shall join the investigation as and
when directed by the Investigating Officer; and
iv) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any persons
acquainted with the facts of the present case so as to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any other authority.
10. It is made clear that violation of any of the above terms and
conditions, the State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail of
the applicant.
11. Application stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
OCTOBER 30, 2017
gr
