Boni Saha vs State Nct Of Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicants seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 122/2023 of Police Station Begumpur for offence under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC.

1.1 These  anticipatory  bail applications  came up  for  the  first hearing  on 21.05.2025 and 01.07.2025 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. By way of order dated 01.07.2025, the predecessor bench granted interim protection to the accused/applicant  Boni  Saha  from  arrest,  which  order  continued  on  date  to date  basis  before  different  benches.  The  accused/applicant  Raghunath  Saha was not  granted any interim protection  but  the  applications continued to be taken up together by different benches and a common order was being passed  extending  the  interim  protection. Along with 179  such  old pending bail applications, these applications also were transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first effective hearing before me. I have heard learned counsel  for  accused/applicants  and learned  APP  for  State  assisted by IO/SI Mohit. I have also heard learned counsel for complainant de facto .

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is that the main accused Gopal Saha cheated the complainant de facto by collecting approximately Rs.41,00,000/- on the assurance to get him a job and visa in Canada, but despite collecting money, the accused Gopal Saha did not fulfil his promise. The role ascribed to the present accused/applicants is that the accused/applicant  Raghunath  Saha  is  brother-in-law  of  Gopal  Saha  and  the accused/applicant Boni Saha  is  daughter  of  Raghunath  Saha.  According to prosecution, the main accused Gopal Saha misrepresented before the complainant de facto that Raghunath Saha is an influential person with links in Canadian High Commission, where accused Boni Saha is employed.

Learned counsel for accused/applicants submits that at the time of the alleged offence, Boni Saha was aged hardly 17 years and it cannot be believed that she was employed in the Canadian High Commission. It is submitted  by learned  counsel  that  the  present  accused/applicants  have  been roped  in  only  to  put  pressure  on  Gopal  Saha  to  return  the  money.  Learned counsel for accused/applicants also contends that not a single penny was received by either of them, so it is not believable that they would have joined in the offence. It is also submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicants that main accused Gopal Saha, who allegedly cheated the complainant de facto has already been granted bail by the trial court.

Learned APP for State on instructions of the IO strongly opposes the bail application, submitting that the present accused/applicants remained silent when Gopal Saha introduced the complainant de facto with them, representing  them as  influential  persons.  Further,  it  is  submitted by learned APP that in the course of subsequent investigation, few more victims of the frauds committed by accused Gopal Saha came up and one of those victims even deposited money in the bank account of the accused/applicant Raghunath Saha.

Learned counsel for complainant de facto alleged that the IO is not investigating  the  case  properly and  the  complainant  de  facto  intends  to  file an application for cancellation of bail granted to Gopal Saha. Learned counsel  for  complainant de facto  reiterated  that at  least  one  of  the  victims has been traced out in investigation, who paid money to the accused/applicant Raghunath Saha as well, so these anticipatory bail applications are liable to be dismissed.

It would be significant to note that according to entire case set up by prosecution, it is Gopal Saha who induced the complainant  de facto as well as the subsequently revealed victims to pay money for being sent to Canada for  job.  It would  also  be  significant  to  note  that  the  accused/applicants  are close  relatives of  Gopal  Saha, being  his brother-in-law  and  niece,  and  that being so, submission of the accused/applicants cannot be brushed aside that they have been roped in only to armtwist the main accused Gopal Saha.

So far as the evidence regarding payment of money in the bank account  of  the  accused/applicant  Raghunath  Saha  is concerned, the  IO  has shown me the handwritten statement of the alleged victim Deepak, from whose bank account, the money was allegedly paid through UPI to the accused/applicant Raghunath Saha. The IO has also shown me the bank account statement of Deepak. But Deepak in his statement not even whispered having paid any money to either of the present accused/applicants. The  debit entry  in the bank account of Deepak  is only for Rs.4,000/- and it is a single entry only. The IO has not collected any evidence to show that the bank account statement  obtained by him is of the same Deepak who allegedly is the victim. Admittedly, the said bank statement has not been furnished to the IO by the victim Deepak. The IO has also  not  been  able  to  show  any Case  Diary  recording  the  collection  of  that bank statement during the course of investigation.

In nutshell, apart from the bald statement of the complainant de facto, naming the present accused/applicants, there is no other evidence against either of them. Of course, on these aspects, the learned trial court shall take independent view on the basis of evidence adduced during trial.

In view of above circumstances, I find no reason to deny liberty to the accused/applicants. Both these anticipatory bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the accused/applicants shall be released on bail, subject to each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO concerned. Accompanying application stands disposed of.

It is also  specifically  directed  that  both accused/applicants  shall join investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO.