Delhi High Court
Jaspreet Singh Batra vs State on 17 July, 2018
$~1 & 2 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 870/2017 and Crl. M.(B). 879/2017,
Crl.M.A.13467/2017, 10361-10362/2018
JASPAL SINGH BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. with
Mr. Anurag Sahay, Advocate for
R-2.
+ BAIL APPLN. 1058/2017 and Crl.M.A.14713/2017,
16629/2017
JASPREET SINGH BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv. with
Mr. Anurag Sahay, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Allegations of complicity in offences punishable under
Sections 420/406/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
have been levelled against the petitioners in these two matters (they
being father and son respectively), in FIR No.608/2016 of Police
Station Okhla Industrial Area, registered on 05.11.2016 on the
complaint of Mr. Rasik Sahni, partner of M/s. Gay Printers, which is
engaged in the business of providing printing services. The dispute
relates to a high end printing machine procured by the complainant,
for consideration, with the assistance of the petitioners, they being
engaged in the business of import of said machinery through their
concerns described as M/s. Sheefa Exports Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Trinity
Printing Machinery, the latter being based in Florida (USA). The
case has been under investigation with the police, completion of
which process is not yet in sight.
2. The first captioned petition of Jaspal Singh Batra had come
up before this court on 18.05.2017 with the following order being
passed:-
"Status report has been filed.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted
at the outset that in order to show his bonafide, the
applicant is ready and willing to deposit out of his own
free will and volition, an amount of Rs.Fifty Lakh in the
court, this without prejudice to his contentions and
defences, with further request that the amount may be
retained in the court and not be released till the
controversy is resolved.
Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, as
also the additional public prosecutor for the State, it is
directed that the amount offered to be deposited by the
petitioner, if tendered in court, shall be received and
retained in an interest bearing fixed deposit receipt by
the Registrar General, initially for a period of six
months with provision for auto renewal. The amount, it
has been undertaken, shall be deposited within two
weeks hereof.
Subject to this undertaking being complied with,
there shall be no coercive action against the applicant,
till next date, this further conditional upon he joining
and cooperating with the process of investigation as and
when called upon to do so.
The applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the court.
Be listed on 10.08.2017.
A fresh updated status report shall be submitted.
Dasti."
3. The second petition of Jaspreet Singh Batra came up before
this court on 30.05.2017 when the following order was passed:-
"BAIL APPLN.1058/2017 and Crl. M.(Bail) 1050/2017
The petitioner is a son of Jaspal Singh Batra, a
co-accused, who was granted interim protection against
coercive action by order dated 18.05.2017 on bail
application on. 870/2017 in the context of on-going
investigation into FIR no.608/2016 under sections 420,
406, 120B, 34 IPC of police station Okhla Industrial
Area. It is noted that in the case of Jaspal Singh Batra
against the backdrop of the allegations that he was one
of the directors of Sheefa Exports Pvt. Ltd., the said
company having received the money in the course of
transactions which are allegedly referred to as
constituting the offence of cheating, the said Jaspal
Singh Batra had voluntarily offered to deposit an
amount of Rs.50 Lakhs to show his bonafide and was
permitted to do so by order dated 18.05.2017.
The application for similar protection for the
petitioner is resisted by the complainant and the State,
inter alia, on the ground that he had also taken active
part in the transactions in question and, in association
with one Amar Pal Singh had received Rs.5 Lakhs by
cheque in the name of Sheefa Exports Pvt. Ltd. from the
complainant but it is fairly conceded that the said
amount of money was eventually returned to the
complainant, though further allegations in the case
being that an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs was later collected
in cash.
On being asked, the learned public prosecutor
fairly conceded that the amount of Rs.25 Lakhs was
received not by the petitioner but by Amar Pal Singh.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner
deserves protection. No coercive action shall be taken
against him till the next date of hearing, this being
conditional upon he joining and cooperating with the
process of investigation as and when called upon to do
so and he not leaving India without prior permission of
the court. This disposes of Crl. M.(B) 1050/2017.
Be listed on 10.08.2017.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master."
4. The aforementioned orders have continued to be operative,
extended from time to time, till date, over the period on their
applications, the petitioners have been granted permission to go
abroad for certain durations, subject to complying with certain
conditions. There is no allegation of either of these petitioners
having misused the liberty thus granted by the interim orders
protecting them against arrest or by the orders in terms of which
they have been travelling abroad.
5. Pertinent to note here that the investigating officer by his
report submitted in December, 2017 (pages 195-197 of the paper
book of the first captioned petition) has confirmed that the
petitioners have been joining investigation as and when called upon
to do so and have been interrogated at length, they having produced
the mobile phones containing certain Whatsapp conversations,
which statedly are relevant for the purposes of investigation and,
therefore, taken over by the investigating agency. The first
petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.50 lacs with the Registrar
General of this Court in terms of the order dated 18.05.2017 quoted
earlier.
6. The investigating officer has also pointedly mentioned in his
said report that pursuant to notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. calling
him upon to produce evidence in support of the claim of expenditure
in repairs to the tune of Rs.65 lacs, no tax invoice has been produced
by the complainant, photocopies of cash receipts showing the total
value of Rs.14,50,000/- having been produced only on 09.12.2017.
7. It is pointed out by the petitioners that co-accused Amar Pal
Singh was admitted on anticipatory bail by another co-ordinate
bench by order dated 04.07.2017 in Bail Application No.1112/2017.
It is submitted that in the given facts and circumstances, on parity
and in view of the fact that the petitioners have joined investigation,
the dispute, according to the submissions of the petitioners, being
civil in nature, the petitions for anticipatory bail may be allowed.
8. The complainant, during the pendency of these matters has
come up with Crl.M.A. 10361/2018, in the first captioned matter,
praying for cancellation of the interim protection granted to the
petitioner Jaspal Singh Batra by order dated 18.05.2017. The prima
facie ground on which such prayer is made is that the said petitioner
tried to influence the persons connected with the agency involved in
repair of the defective machine, which was allegedly delivered,
reliance being placed on transcript of conversation involving the
official of Komori India Private Limited on one hand and the
complainant, besides one more person on the other.
9. The person who was statedly improperly approached himself
has not come up with any grievance. The stray observations carrying
more of innuendo in the said tape-recorded conversation are not
sufficient to reach the conclusion that the petitioner is trying to
tamper with the evidence. In these circumstances, while the
investigating officer has confirmed that the petitioners have been co-
operating with the probe agency, there is no good ground why the
interim protection be withdrawn or the anticipatory bail application
be rejected.
10. In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, and also on
parity, both the petitions for grant of anticipatory bail are hereby
allowed. It is directed that in the event of they being arrested during
the course of investigation into case FIR No.608/2016, under
Sections 420/406/120-B/34 IPC, the petitioners Jaspal Singh Batra
and Jaspreet Singh Batra be released on anticipatory bail, subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) An amount of Rs.50 lacs deposited by the petitioner Jaspal
Singh Batra with the Registrar General shall continue to be retained
in interest bearing fixed deposit receipt in terms of order dated
18.05.2017, till completion of investigation and thereafter shall be
subject to such further directions as may be passed by the court of
cognizance or the trial court, as the case may be, at appropriate
stage.
(ii) The petitioners shall continue cooperating with the
investigation and join the same as and when called upon to do so;
(ii) The petitioners shall not come in contact with or try to
influence any of the witnesses connected to the case;
(iv) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of
self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that
of the surety to the investigating officer;
(v) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(vi). They shall not leave India without the prior permission of the
court of cognizance or the trial court, as the case may be, and to
ensure due compliance with this condition and shall deposit their
passports, if they hold one, with the said court; and
(vii) This order will inure only till the date of first appearance of
the petitioners in the event of a charge-sheet being filed on
conclusion of the investigation and process being issued against
them by the court of cognizance.
11. Both the petitions and the pending applications stand disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2018
vk
