Abhinay Kumar vs State( Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 387/2024 of PS Geeta Colony  for offence under Section 406/420/120B/34 IPC.

1.1 This anticipatory bail application was listed for first hearing on 05.12.2024 before the predecessor bench and after hearing both sides, the learned  predecessor bench  directed that  subject  to  his  joining  investigation, the accused/applicant shall not be arrested till next date. That interim protection continued on date to date basis till date. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before this bench. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State.

Briefly stated, prosecution case is as follows. In the FIR, the complainant de facto alleged that he was approached by the accused/applicant and one Lalit Jain in January 2024 with an offer for investment in their company namely M/s Clean Earth Innovations Pvt. Ltd., which is dealing in scrap and manufacture of environment friendly products. The accused/applicant and his associate assured to transfer to the complainant de facto 2% shares in the company for investment of Rs. 2 crores. The accused/applicant and his associate persuaded the  complainant de facto after showing him financial health status of the company. Accordingly, the complainant de facto paid cash amount in three instalments, viz., Rs.44.6 lakhs on 11.01.2024 at Chacha Nehru Hospital, Geeta Colony; Rs.25.75 lakhs on 12.01.2024 and Rs.25 lakhs on 24.02.2025 at Karol Bagh. The said entire amount was paid in cash against receipts issued  by  the  accused/applicant  and  his associate.  But the  accused  persons neither transferred 2% shares in their company nor returned the amount. Hence, according to the complainant de facto, he was cheated by the accused persons.

Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the entire case set up by the complainant de facto is false and that the accused/applicant never issued  any  receipt to  the  complainant de  facto.  It is further  contended  that during the period of interim protection from arrest, the accused/applicant joined investigation whenever directed by the IO and his specimen signatures have already been taken for being compared with the alleged receipts. It is also contended that there is no evidence collected to show any cash money drawn by the complainant de facto from his bank account, to be handed over to the accused persons.

Learned APP for State submits that the accused/applicant be directed to join investigation, in case he is granted anticipatory bail. However, learned  APP  admits  that  specimen signatures  of the  accused/applicant  have already been obtained by the IO.

In order to ascertain if the complainant de facto paid any money to the accused persons towards purchase of 2% shares of the company of the accused  persons,  the IO  was  directed  to  show  the  said  cash  receipts.  Those receipts are  completely silent about any purchase of shares. Those receipts are printed material on letter head, bearing signatures alleged  to be of the accused/applicant. The  unusual  space  between  the  printed  material  and  the signatures prima facie raises a suspicion. Even the learned Court of Sessions while dealing with anticipatory bail application of the accused/applicant recorded such observation.

At this stage, during dictation of the order, learned APP also submits that as per evidence collected by the IO, on the date of payment of first instalment, the accused/applicant was not a Director in the said company. But on this aspect,  as mentioned above,  prima facie, the  material on record is not of the nature that the accused/applicant be deprived of liberty.

Considering the overall circumstances, the application is allowed and in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one  surety in  the  like  amount  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  IO/SHO  concerned. Pending applications stand disposed of.

Of course, on the above aspects, the learned trial court shall take independent view at the final stage on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.