Delhi High Court
Ashu Khan vs State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 8 October, 2018
$~25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 08th October, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 2366/2018 and Crl. M.A. 33830/2018
ASHU KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra and
Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advs.
versus
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for
State with SI Pradeep Kumar,
PS - Model Town, Delhi
Mr. Kanwar Kochhar, Adv. for
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner had earlier moved bail application bearing No.
2465/2016 which was withdrawn on 03.07.2018 on the basis of
submissions made by the counsel then engaged that he had been
instructed to do so. At the time of withdrawal of the said bail
application, the petitioner had also informed the Court that he would
like to appear before the investigating officer and, thereafter, if need
be, apply for regular bail in the event of he being arrested.
2. After three months, the present application has been moved
again for release on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Similar application was earlier moved (bearing No. 2582/2018) before
the Court of Sessions, which was described as sixth such application,
it having been dismissed by Sessions Court on 01.10.2018.
3. Status report is filed by the State. It reveals that the petitioner
has been evading joining investigation till date and process under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has consequently been issued against him.
4. The counsel present for the petitioner at this stage started
arguing that the petitioner is an illiterate person who was surprised on
being told that his previous application has been withdrawn on
03.07.2018 by the earlier counsel, his explanation being that he had
not given any such instructions to the counsel.
5. On being asked to show the pleadings in above regard, the
counsel present submits that he has not made any averments to such
effect in the present application. If such were the instructions vis-a-vis
the past conduct, pleadings were definitely required to be made. If
such were the scenario vis-a-vis the conduct of the counsel previously
engaged, there was also a need to seek explanation from him. No
complaint admittedly has been lodged till date against the previous
counsel for making submissions 'without instructions' as is orally
submitted. Since there are no pleadings to such effect, it is clear that
the counsel present is trying to invent theories in order to mislead the
Court.
6. Having regard to the allegations in the case forming subject
matter of investigation through FIR no.242/2016 of police station
Model Town involving offences punishable under Sections 420, 406
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), it is seen that the first
informant is stated to have been cheated by the petitioner and his
associates on the false representation of making available to him
certain motor vehicles (in damaged condition), inducing him to part
with money, the promised vehicles not having been made available.
When persuaded, the appellant handed over certain cheques through
co-accused Avinash Jain which were later disowned. It was claimed
by the petitioner that he had passed on money to the complainant
through RTGS, the documents respecting which, upon investigation,
were found to be forged and fabricated.
7. The allegations in the case at hand are quite serious. The
petitioner is shown to have criminal antecedents, he also being
involved in a number of other cases including FIR no.525/14 under
Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC, P.S. Burari, FIR no.336/11 under Section
420 IPC PS Burari, FIR no.283/11 under Section 419, 420, 376, 120B
IPC, PS Burari.
8. In the given facts and circumstances, no case is made out for
release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
9. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
October 08, 2018
PB/yg
