Delhi High Court
Varun Chauhan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 4 March, 2024
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 04.03.2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 786/2024
VARUN CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sweta Rani, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State with SI Surekha, P.S.
Special Cell.
Mr. Manish Gandhi, Advocate
for the complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 6964-65/2024 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
3. The instant petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioner
seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR no. 267/2023
dated 25.10.2023 registered at Police Station Special Cell for offence
punishable under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B/23 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
4. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on
behalf of the State.
5. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the
complainant Ashish Kohli had made a complaint with Special Cell
alleging that he has been cheated of an amount of Rs. 17 lacs. It is
alleged that the complainant's brother Goldy Khurana had a case
pending under the Company's Act at NCLT Court, New Delhi, in
which a stay was granted. It is stated that to get the stay vacated, they
were making efforts. In the meanwhile, the complainant was
informed that the stay has been granted on the directions of PS to the
Union Home Minister. Thereafter, the complainant had contacted the
mobile no. ***009, provided by the Registrar, Mathura (present
applicant) who had introduced himself as Saket Kumar, PS to Home
Minister of India, who had informed him that the order was given on
the directions of Advisor to Law Minister of India. Thereafter, the
complainant had received a call from two different numbers from
accused Nitin Gupta who had introduced himself as advisor to Law
Minister of India and had called him to visit Delhi, and had assured
him that he will get the stay vacated. The complainant had met
accused Nitin Gupta who had introduced him with other two accused
persons Varun Chauhan (as Saket Kumar, PS to Union Home
Minister of India), and accused Sikha Gupta (as Personal Secretary to
Varun Chauhan). It is alleged that the complainant on the demand of
accused persons had paid Rs.12 lacs to settle/vacate the stay, and
later also gave a forged court/N.C.L.T. order dated 12.04.2023 to the
complainant to gain his confidence. It is alleged that in the meantime,
complainant informed the entire incident to his friend and he came to
know that Nitin Gupta and his associates are neither legal advisors
nor are they PS to Home Minister of India and the order qua vacation
of stay is also fake under a well conspired scheme. Hence, the present
FIR was registered.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the main
accused persons Shikha Gupta and Nitin Gupta have already been
arrested and the applicant is willing to join the investigation.
Therefore, it is prayed that applicant be granted anticipatory bail.
7. On the other hand, learned APP for the State argues that the
allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and
the applicant is required for custodial interrogation. It is further
argued that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the
anticipatory bail application of the applicant/accused. Therefore, the
learned APP for the State prays that the application for grant of
anticipatory bail be rejected considering the allegations against the
applicant.
8. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State and have
perused the material on record.
9. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature since
he has impersonated himself as PS to Home Minister of India. The
allegations also are that the complainant herein had met the accused
in the Court and had also handed over him, at the instance of the
co-accused, a cash amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in the Court itself.
10. In such circumstances, since the applicant has impersonated
himself as Saket Kumar PS to Union Home Minister of India and
played active role in the conspiracy. He has also taken money on the
pretext of settling/vacating the stay qua the complainant firm
Milestone Realcon Ltd. and also forging the court/N.C.L.T. order
dated 12.04.2023, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is
required to unearth the entire conspiracy, recovery of material
evidence and also recovery of cheated money.
11. Impersonation, especially when done with the intent to deceive
or manipulate, is a serious offense with far-reaching consequences. In
the present case, where the applicant has purportedly impersonated
himself as PS to the Union Home Minister of India, the gravity of the
act cannot be overstated. By assuming the identity of a high-ranking
government official, the applicant not only engages in deceit but also
undermines the trust and integrity of the governmental system.
Impersonating a representative of the Union Home Minister carries
significant implications beyond the immediate victims. Such actions
have the potential to breed widespread scepticism towards
governmental institutions, undermining public trust and fostering an
atmosphere of uncertainty and unrest. The ramifications extend
beyond mere financial or personal harm, impacting the credibility of
the government and the rule of law.
12. Furthermore, the alleged involvement of the applicant in a
conspiracy, coupled with the use of impersonation to further illicit
objectives, underscores the need for custodial interrogation. The
complexity and severity of the offenses alleged necessitate a
thorough investigation, including the interrogation of the accused in
custody. Granting anticipatory bail in this scenario could potentially
impede the investigation, hamper the recovery of evidence, and
undermine efforts to uncover the truth. Therefore, it is crucial for this
Court to prioritize the interests of justice and deny anticipatory bail to
the applicant, ensuring that the investigation proceeds unhindered and
justice is served.
13. Accordingly, the present application for grant of anticipatory
bail stands dismissed.
14. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above
shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
15. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MARCH 4, 2024/ns
