Rishab Kapoor vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1584 Del

$~32 & 33

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                                   Date of Decision: 12.03.2020

+        Bail Appl. No. 696/2020 & CRL M.A.5339/2020

         RISHAB KAPOOR                                          ..... Petitioner

                                    Through:        Mr. Yudhishtar Kahol and
                                                    Kunal Kahol, Advocate.
                                    versus

         THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent

                                    Through:        Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Ld.
                                                    APP for the state with SI
                                                    Somvir Singh PS: Alipur.

                                    AND

+        Bail Appl. No. 701/2020 & CRL M.A.5345/2020

         RISHAB KAPOOR                                          ..... Petitioner

                                    Through:        Mr. Yudhishtar Kahol and
                                                    Kunal Kahol, Advocate.
                                    versus

         THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent

                                    Through:        Mr. Tarang Srivastava, Ld.
                                                    APP for the state with SI
                                                    Somvir Singh PS: Alipur.




Bail Appl. No. 696/2020 & Bail Appl. No. 701/2020                 Page 1 of 4
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

                                   JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J

CRL M.A.5339/2020( Exemption) in Bail Appl. No. 696/2020.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL M.A.5345/2020( Exemption) in Bail Appl. No. 701/2020.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Bail Appl. No. 696/2020 & Bail Appl. No. 701/2020

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of second anticipatory bail

applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

petitioner Rishab Kapoor in FIR no. 384/2019 and FIR No.

386/2019, both under Section 420/406/34 IPC, PS Alipur, Delhi.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory

bail in both the applications on the ground that petitioner is

innocent and has been falsely implicated. Petitioner was merely

working as an agent of M/S Troy Milling and Solar Energy Pvt.

Ltd. being run by Mr. Jai Kumar Koshti and Sumit Aggarwal

(Accused no. 2 & 3). In FIR bearing no. 384/2019, the only role

played by the petitioner was that he had introduced accused no. 2

and 3 to the complainant Raj Kumar whereas in FIR bearing no.

386/2019, it is alleged against the petitioner that he along with Raj

Kumar, Director of Prateek Power Plant Pvt. Ltd. had introduced

the complainant Dhananjay Khatri with the Directors of M/S Troy

Milling & Energy Pvt. Ltd. i.e. accused no. 1and 2. It is further

submitted that entire disputed amount has been transferred to

account of accused no. 1. Petitioner is neither the owner nor

director of the company (Accused no. 1) nor beneficiary thereof

and was entitled only to the percentage of commission of profits. It

is further submitted that petitioner is ready to deposit the alleged

amount of Rs. 12,55,000/- without prejudice to his rights/liabilities

in case FIR no. 384/2019. It is, therefore, prayed that in the event

of arrest, he be released on anticipatory bail in both the FIR bearing

no. 394/2019 and 386/2019.

3. The anticipatory bail applications are opposed by the Ld.

APP for the State on the ground that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that first bail

application of the petitioner has already been dismissed by this

Court in both the FIRs vide a detailed order dated 12.02.2020 and

since then, there are no change in the circumstance nor any new

fact has emerged after rejection of first anticipatory bail application

of the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress and

petitioner is not cooperating with the investigating officer. It is

further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

also required. He has, therefore prayed for dismissal of the bail

applications.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. The first

anticipatory bail applications of the petitioner in FIR no. 384/2019

and 386/2019 were dismissed by this Court vide a detailed order

dated 12.02.2020 on the ground that the investigation is at initial

stage, petitioner is not joining the investigation and his custodial

interrogation is required. Since then there is no change in the

circumstances of the case. Keeping in mind the above facts as well

as the amount of cheating involved 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, J MARCH 12, 2020 Ak