Rishab Kapoor vs State
2020 Latest Caselaw 1621 Del

$~29

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 13.03.2020

+        Bail Appl. No. 707/2020 & CRL M.A.5395/2020

         RISHAB KAPOOR                               ..... Petitioner

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

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

                            Through:      Mr. G.m.Farooqui, Ld. APP
                                          for the state with SI Somvir
                                          Singh PS: Alipur.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
                 JUDGMENT

BRIJESH SETHI, J

CRL M.A.5395/2020 (Exemption).

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Bail Appl. No. 707/2020.

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

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

petitioner Rishab Kapoor in FIR no. 385/2019, under Section

420/406/34 IPC, PS Alipur, Delhi.

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

bail 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). The only

role played by the petitioner was that he along with Raj Kumar,

Director of Prateek Power Plant Pvt. Ltd. had introduced the

complainant 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, therefore, prayed that in

the event of arrest, he be released on anticipatory bail.

3. The anticipatory bail application is 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 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 application.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. The first

anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was 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 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 application is,

therefore, dismissed.

BRIJESH SETHI, J MARCH 13, 2020 Ak