Delhi High Court
Rishab Kapoor vs The State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 12 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 5th February, 2020
Pronounced on: 12th February, 2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 324/2020
RISHAB KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh &
Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh,
Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma,
Additional Public Prosecutor for
State with SI Md. Imtiyan Alam
Mr. Rakesh Beniwal, Advocate for
complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 315/2020
RISHAB KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh &
Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh,
Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma,
Additional Public Prosecutor for
State with SI Md. Imtiyan Alam
Bail Appln. 324/2020 1
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
Mr. Rakesh Beniwal, Advocate for
complainant.
+ BAIL APPLN. 314/2020
RISHAB KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh &
Mr. Saroj Kumar Singh,
Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma,
Additional Public Prosecutor for
State with SI Md. Imtiyan Alam
Mr. Rakesh Beniwal, Advocate for
complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI, J
1. Vide above captioned bail applications, petitioner is seeking
anticipatory bail in three FIRs bearing Nos.384/2019, 385/2018 and
386/2019, all under Sections 420/406/34 IPC, registered at police station
Alipur, Delhi. The FIR No. 384/20219 has been registered at the instance
of Prateek Power Plant Pvt. Ltd. and FIR No. 385/2019 has been got
registered on the complaint of GPN Solar Pvt. Ltd. and that FIR No.
386/2019 has been registered by Pundeep Solar Energy Private Ltd.
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
2. Since the grounds urged in these applications seeking anticipatory
bail are similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, these applications have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
3. Briefly stating, the facts emerging in FIR No. 384/2019 are that in
the year 2017, the petitioner-Rishabh Kapoor met the complainant- Raj
Kumar [FIR No. 384/2019] and introduced himself being in the business
of Solar Energy and introduced the complainant-Raj Kumar to accused-
Jai Kumar Koshti and Sumit Aggarwal, as the Directors of accused
company Troy Milling & Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. He represented
misleading and alluring facts and data, showing bright dreams in the
business of solar energy and persuaded the complainant to become an
authorized dealer/ distributor of accused company in different part of the
country. The petitioner persuaded the petitioner to get registered the
complainant company for business and profit earning. It is alleged that
the petitioner obtained signatures of complainant on the ploy and
misrepresentation of entering into an Agreement for the purpose of
establishing a start up business and assured the complainant that Troy
Milling & Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd shall be responsible for all liabilities
and losses if incurred in running and performance of the project.
Subsequent to entering into the Agreement, the accused-company issued
a Certificate authorizing the complainant company as the distributor of
accused-company and to gain the confidence of the complainant, a
cheque amounting to Rs.74,800/- was got issued by the accused persons
towards office rent and expenses, which was dishonoured with the
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
remarks "Stop Payment". It is mentioned in the FIR in question that the
complainant made several payments from time to time to the accused
company through bank transfer to proceed with the business
requirements. It is alleged that in addition, a sum of Rs.12,55,000/- was
given to the petitioner in cash against receipt. It is further alleged in the
FIR that the petitioner in connivance with the accused company assured
the complainant that the documentation with regard to solar project in
Rajastahan and Maharashtra shall be completed. It is also alleged that
after payment of Rs.32,05,000/- in favour of accused persons, the
complainant followed up with the accused to complete the documentation
and hand over the control of established Solar Power Plant project but his
request was delayed on one pretext or the other and accused persons
could not be approached through telephone calls and complainant was
informed that the accused persons had gone abroad. The complainant
alleged that the accused persons cheated him by forgery and
misrepresentation and when they apprehended criminal action against
them, they sent an email to the complainant intimating that the
Agreement in question has been cancelled. It is alleged that till date the
accused persons have not refunded the cheated amount for which they
sought time and rather, they are extending threats to the complainant and
his family.
4. Similar are the grounds on which FIR No. 385/2019 has been got
registered on the complaint of GPN Solar Pvt. Ltd. through its
Director Nitin Kumar. In this FIR, the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are that in the year 2017 itself, one- Raj Kumar (Complainant
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
in FIR No. 384/2019) introduced the complainant-Nitin Kumar to the
petitioner and the other accused persons, who introduced themselves in
the business of Solar Business and by representing fake and fabricated
documents, allured the complainant of the FIR in question to take up
dealership and agency of Troy Milling & Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. and
for this purpose induced him to register a company and assured that all
kinds of help and assistance will be provided in operation of the startup
business and that for every loss and liability, they shall be responsible.
The complainant has alleged that to meet the business requirements, he
had transferred an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- either through bank transfer
or in cash against receipts in the name of accused persons. It is alleged
that upon frequent follow up, when the complainant realized that he has
been cheated by the accused persons, the FIR in question was got
registered.
5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in FIR No. 386/2019
are also that on the pretext of establishing start up Solar Power Plant,
petitioner along with co-accused persons allured the complainant to
register a company and applying the same modus operandi as with the
complainants of FIR Nos. 384/2019 & 385/2019, fraudulently procured a
sum of Rs.24,30,000/- from the complainant and when the complainant
realized foul play, the FIR in question was got registered against the
accused persons.
6. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner met the complainant-Raj Kumar through common friends, who
intended to invest money in some lucrative project and since petitioner
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
was in touch with the Directors of the accused company-Troy Milling
and Solar Energy (I) Pvt. Ltd. &Ors., the petitioner introduced the
complainant to them. It is further submitted that the complainant- Raj
Kumar requested the petitioner to accompany him and help him in the
business and promised the petitioner to pay a certain amount of
commission on the investment and profits so made, irrespective of
whatsoever commission he would be getting from the business. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact co-accused Jai
Kumar Koshti and Sumit Aggarwal had also promised and allured the
petitioner of giving some commission out of the profit of the business on
the condition of taking active part in all their business dealings, but had
put the condition that the commission would be given only through Raj
Kumar. However, no commission ever came to the petitioner.
7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner had accepted the offer of Raj Kumar and worked with him for
almost an year and in the course of business, they had to travel from place
to place and complainant- Raj Kumar made some necessary expenses for
travels and lodging. Therefore, the expenses incurred were not
exclusively for the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner
started demanding commission, Raj Kumar threatened him with dire
consequences of implicating him in false cases. Consequently, the
petitioner maintained a distance from Raj Kumar.
8. It is further submitted that the complainants of FIR No. 385/2019
and FIR No. 386/2019 had come in the investment plan through Raj
Kumar and when they asked for their returns of the investments from Raj
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
Kumar, he implicated the petitioner to save his skin. For this reason only
Raj Kumar had falsely alleged that a sum of Rs.12,55,000/- was given by
him to the petitioner in cash. It is further submitted that in the FIR No.
384/2019, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he had
received a sum of Rs.12,55,000/- from the complainant-Raj Kumar but it
is not revealed towards what account the said payment was made, as the
petitioner was only a facilitator between the complainant -Raj Kumar and
the accused persons and since the project was not completed, no occasion
for payment of commission arose. It is submitted that the allegation of
receiving the amount of Rs.12,55,000/- is blatantly false because all the
payments were made to the account of the accused-Company through
RTGS or bank transaction and also that in the FIR in question, it is not
mentioned that for what purpose and for whom the sum of Rs.12,55,000/-
was received by the petitioner or that the petitioner had received the said
amount for and on behalf of the accused- Company. It is pointed out that
the FIR mentions particularly all dates of payments but so far the
receiving of Rs.12,55,000/- is concerned, it mentions only August, 2017
and no specific date has been mentioned.
9. It is further submitted that some blank pages signed by the
petitioner for the sake of ease and smoothness in the business, were lying
with Raj Kumar and he has misused one of them and he may further
misuse other pages signed by the petitioner. In support of petitioner's
case, petitioner's counsel has relied upon decision of this Court in Bail
Application No. 1154/2014, Ashok Kumar Vs. State, rendered on 6th
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
August, 2014 and Bail Application No. 2674/2014, Tara Chand Vs. State
of NCT of Delhi, rendered on 5th March, 2015.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner is
ready to join investigation as and when called and has prayed that
applications seeking anticipatory bail of petitioner be allowed in the
interest of justice.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
has opposed these bail applications on the ground that the allegations
levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, who has been actively
involved in the commission of crime. The role attributed to the petitioner
in cheating the complainants of FIR in question by misrepresenting facts
and cheating them for a huge sum of money has come in picture and,
therefore, custodial interrogation of petitioner would be required for
investigation in these FIRs.
12. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by counsel
representing both the sides. I have also gone through the decisions in
Ashok Kumar (Supra) and Tara Chand (Supra) relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner. The same are, however, distinguishable on the
basis of the facts and circumstances stated therein. It is a settled law that
no straight jacket formula can be laid down for grant of bail as each case
depends upon its peculiar facts and circumstances. During the
investigation, the two accused persons, who represented themselves as
the Directors of Troy Milling & Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. have been arrested
in January, 2020 and despite being served with the notice, petitioner is
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
not coming forward to join investigation in this case and his custodial
interrogation is required for the following purposes:-
(i) To recover the laptop, mobile phone and other gadgets
which are in possession of the petitioner;
(ii) To recover the cheated amount;
(iii) To recover the blank signed documents containing signature
of complainant.
13. In view of the above facts appearing on record and the fact that the
petitioner is not joining the investigation and also in view of the fact that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, no grounds for
anticipatory bail are made out. The anticipatory bail applications are,
therefore, dismissed.
(BRIJESH SETHI)
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
r
Bail Appln. 315/2020
Bail Appln. 314/2020
