Nancy Gill vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 456 Del

9# & 10#$
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                              Decided on: 17th January, 2018
+                     BAIL APPLN. 459/2016
       NANCY GILL                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by:     Mr. Sidheshwar Rai, Advocate.

                             versus
       STATE REPRESENTED BY: GOVT OF
       NCT OF DELHI                                  ..... Respondent
                      Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the
                                        State with Inspector Rajender,
                                        PS Karol Bagh.
                                        Mr. Kuldeep Goel, Advocate
                                        for complainant.
+      CRL.M.C. 3661/2015 and Crl. M.A. No. 12974/2015 (Stay)
       NANCY GILL                                           ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by:     Mr. Sidheshwar Rai, Advocate.

                             versus
    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the
                                  State with Inspector Rajender,
                                  PS Karol Bagh.
                                  Mr. Kuldeep Goel, Advocate
                                  for complainant/respondent
                                  No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. By bail application No.450/2016, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail and by Crl. M.C. No. 3661/2015, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.576/2015 under Section 420 IPC registered at PS Karol Bagh, New

Delhi.

2. The above noted FIR was registered on the complaint of one Vijay Anand who stated that the petitioner Nancy Gill and her family members residing at house No.B-75, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi were his customers. He had cordial relation with Nancy's family for the last 30 years. In the month of March, 2015 Nancy Gill, her husband Vicky Gill and son Joey Gill came to his showroom at Bank Street, Karol Bagh and represented that in the wake of the "Make in India" programme, King of Brunei wants to start/open 14 Super Specialty Hospitals in different parts of India and very first of them will be started in Ahmadabad, Gujarat. In this context the cousin sister of King of Brunei, namely Dr. Ajja Binti Kifli is going to meet with the top leadership of the country and thus Nancy Gill, Vicky Gill and Joey Gill wanted to make jewellery for them due to their family relations with them. It was stated that once jewellery is received by Dr. Kifli she would issue some e-letters/tickets in future whereby the person to whom these e-tickets/letters were issued could purchase every material needed for hospitals and there was a good margin of profit in the work. Alluring the complainant an order was placed by Nancy Gill on behalf of Dr.Kifli to prepare 50 bangles of gold, three bracelets of gold, long necklace for King, 10 diamond kade and 82 coins pure gold embossing thereon the photo Prime Minister of India and Amit Shah. The said jewellery was delivered at the house of the petitioner on 1st June, 2015 in early hours at 6.30 AM and when the complainant asked for money it was not given. Later it was revealed that on 2nd June, 2015, Nancy Goel left for Dubai. It was also realized that there was no such Dr. Kifli in existence and all the talks about King of Brunei coming to India, to invest in Hospitals and gifting jewellery and coins were

part of a larger conspiracy.

3. It is thus the claim of the complainant that he was cheated for a sum of ₹2.20 crores. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner even sought to sell the said jewellery and in this regard statement of Pritpal Kalsi was recorded who stated that Nancy Gill showed her some jewellery for selling and he stated that he did not have big customers for the said jewellery. When the photographs of the jewellery were shown to Pritpal Kalsi, he identified to be the same jewellery.

4. Considering the evidence on record, this Court finds no case for either grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner or for quashing of the FIR since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence.

5. Bail application No.450/2016 and Crl. M.C. No. 3661/2015 are dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 17, 2018 'vn'