Dismissed

Sunil Bajaj v. State of Delhi NCT

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024BAIL APPLN./262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application for anticipatory bail in a case of cheating and impersonation involving a jewellery shop. The applicant argued a disputed note proved his non-involvement. The court held unreasonable his reliance on the denied testimony and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; pending application disposed of.

Sunil Bajaj Vs State of Delhi NCT — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 262/2024

¶4

SUNIL BAJAJ ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Ravi Kalra and Mr.Prateek Lakra, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF DELHI NCT ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State with SI Nitin, PS Farsh Bazar.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA O R D E R

¶10

% 07.02.2024

¶11

An application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 152/2023 under Sections 419/420/34 IPC registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar.

¶12

As per the case of the prosecution, present FIR was registered on the complaint of Harpreet Singh regarding cheating of Rs.40 lacs and 500 gms gold, by impersonation by six accused who posed as CBI Officers. Complainant alleged that he runs a jewellery shop in the name of Gurucharan Jewellers and on 17.04.2023 about 8:45 PM, six persons including a woman entered the shop and introduced themselves as CBI Officers with ID Cards hanging around their neck. The aforesaid persons stated that there is a complaint against complainant for indulging in illegal work of gold. After the customers left the showroom, they locked the door from inside and started searching the shop and also coerced the complainant

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:53

¶15

to sign a paper. Further they took Rs.40 lacs to settle the matter and on checking, it was revealed that the said persons had taken away 500 gms of gold worth Rs.30 lacs. The incident was reported to the Police after a week and FIR was accordingly registered on 24.04.2023.

¶16

During the course of investigation, accused Pawan Gupta, Himanshu @ Dinesh @ Bablu, Sandeep Bhatnagar and Yogesh Sharma were arrested and disclosed regarding involvement in the present case. Rs.10 lakhs along with 57 gms and 47 gms of gold was recovered from accused Pawan Gupta; Rs.1 lakh was recovered at the instance of accused Himanshu@ Dinesh@ Bablu; two DVRs were recovered from accused Yogesh Sharma . Accused Sandeep Bhatnagar further disclosed that he had handed over Rs.20 lakhs of his share to the present applicant/petitioner Sunil Bajaj .

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.20 lakhs was returned by one Vimal Bhatnagar on 18.04.2023, to whom said amount was loaned. Further reliance is placed upon a ‘Note’ which was written by Vishal Bhatanagar in this regard and bears the signatures of Vimal Bhatnagar and the petitioner Sunil Bajaj . It is further submitted that the petitioner in no manner is connected with the alleged commission of offence and amount of Rs.20 lacs which was returned by Vimal Bhatnagar is no way connected with the case property.

¶18

On the other hand, application has been vehemently opposed by learned APP for the State. It is submitted that aforesaid Note dated 18.04.2023 relied upon by petitioner has been created to ensure that case property is not recovered. It is submitted that there was no necessity of mentioning in the Note that Sandeep Bhatnagar had no connection in the aforesaid transaction. It is further submitted that Vimal Bhatnagar had

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:53

¶21

joined investigation and has denied having handed over any money as alleged in the said Note though he has admitted to the preparation of Note by him. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had earlier joined investigation but the recovery of the cheated amount is yet to be made. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, since Vimal Bhatnagar has denied having handed over any amount in cash in terms of the Note dated 18.04.2023, during the course of investigation, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner for purpose of recovery appears to be imperative.

¶22

Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶23

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J FEBRUARY 7, 2024/v

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:55:53

Sunil Bajaj v. State of Delhi NCT

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Bajaj v. State of Delhi NCT

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms K Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Manoj @ Pittal Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Gulati Vs Harpreet Singh

State Vs Amit Gautam

Mr Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs Raja Arora

Sumit Nagar Vs State